1920-05-28

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Militia Council for the Dominion of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1919.-Hon. Mr. Guthrie.
Memorandum No. 6, European war, respecting work of the Department of Militia and, Defence, from November 1, 1918, to October 31, 1919.-Hon. Mr. Guthrie.

[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. C. J. DOHERTY moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 137, to amend the Criminal Code.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. DOHERTY:: This Bill deals with
quite a few articles of the Criminal Code, but several of them are mere matters of procedure, which, perhaps, do not call for any development at the present time. For instance, there is a provision designating the courts in the different provinces, to which the word "court" when used in the Code is to apply. This is to meet changes in designation in the courts of different provinces, resulting from provincial laws.
There is a provision amending the articles, that deal with the possession of firearms and the necessity of obtaining permits in order to be entitled to have such firearms in possession and to carry them. The effect of the provision is to extend the present law so as to include a larger number of kinds of firearms.
There is a provision making it an offence to use as a sworn document or affidavit, representing it to be such, an instrument which has not been sworn to. We have had from different parts of the country, representations that such action has been taken at different times and that it should be made an offence.

There are provisions dealing with raising the age of consent, which are the same provisions which this House has already passed on .more than one occasion, but which failed to pass in the Senate.
There is an amendment to section 235, which is the section dealing with gambling, and more particularly the section which, under the law as it stands at present, permits the carrying on of wagers and betting upon a race track. It is proposed to modify the present legislation by limiting the method of organized betting which is permissible, to the use of the pari-mutuel machine, and furthermore to make it a condition of the permission that the profits derived from the betting operations shall be restricted to a limited percentage of the amounts at stake That is the extent of the modification in the law on that subject.
There is an amendment to section 300 for the purpose of making a person convicted of attempting to commit rape liable to be sentenced to be whipped. Under the existing law, whereas a person found guilty of indecent assault may be sentenced to be whipped, a person found guilty of the graver offence of attempted rape is not subject to that punishment. Several judges have called attention to this anomaly and pointed out that it ought to be remedied.
There is a provision making an offence and providing punishment for the unlawful wearing of a uniform of any of the forces of His Majesty, or badges, buttons and so forth, indicating military service.
There is a provision requiring that in order that, a person may be arrested or summoned from one province to be brought into another, the warrant should be issued in all cases on the authorization of the Attorney General of the province in which it js issued. This is making a general application a requirement which is already contained in the Act for the protection of provincial prohibitory laws.
There is a provision making more severe the 'lenalties for persons convicted of keeping awdy houses.
M BUREAU:	What are the penalties?
M. DOHERTY: This is the amendment:
The provisions of section 1035 shall not apply or extend to any person convicted more than twice under said paragraph (f) of section 773 for keeping a common bawdy house or of keeping a common bawdy house in any premises with respect to which premises more than two convictions have been made, whether the same person has been convicted as keeper thereof or not, and any person so convicted shall not
in either case be sentenced to less than three months' imprisonment, nor shall any sentence imposed in either of the cases be suspended under the provisions of section 1081 without the concurrence of the counsel for the Crown in the prosecution of the offender.
The purpose is to make imprisonment imperative in the case of a third offence and to provide that where the offence is committed more than twice in the same premises, even though it be committed by a different person, the third time the offence is committed, it shall be treated as a third offence. It has been pointed out by the administrators oif the lftw that it has been impossible to get convictions as for a second or as for a third offence; though the premises continued to be used for carrying on the business, because after each conviction there would be a substitute or a new person carrying on the business.	*


Mr. BUREAU:: The offence follows the real estate instead of the person?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: That is a new theory.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is perhaps a novelty, but I think the circumstances justify it.
We have a provision to meet this situation which has arisen. There being no appeal in criminal matters in cases where the courts of appeal of the provinces are unanimous, it has happened that on several dif-fernt questions arising under the Criminal Code, the Court of Appeal of one province has decided in one sense and the Court of Appeal of another province has decided in another sense, and there being no appeal, we have contradictory jurisprudence interpreting the same law.
It is proposed to enact that in any case where the judgment of the Court of Appeal of a province is in contradiction of the judgment of another Court of Appeal of another province on the same point, the Attorney General or the accused shall have the right of appeal to the Supreme Court. The purpose is simply to make it possible to have a uniform jurisprudence in the application of this law, which is common to the whole Dominion and rests on a Dominion statute. There are also provisions in regard to appeals in two of the western provinces which have been asked for by the authorities there. There is also a provision to enable the Attorney General to make application in the province of Quebec for a change of venue in cases where there happens to be perhaps only one case in a district and it is not thought

desirable to have a criminal court in that district to try only one or two cases. The Attorney General of the province has made application for this provision and it seems to be one that ought to be granted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No.
138	to amend the Penitentiary Act.
Jacques Bureau: Explain.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There are just three provisions to the Bill. The first one is to make clear the power of the minister with regard to the making of regulations. The second one is to provide that wardens, when they are appointed, instead of being appointed warden of a particular penitentiary, shall be appointed simply wardens and be susceptible of being moved from one penitentiary to another according as the best interests of the administration may require. The third provision repeals an Act which fixes a schedule of salary for the penitentiary officers, the usefulness of that Act disapearing in view of the operation of the Civil Service Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No.
139	to amend the Admiralty Act.
Jacques Bureau: Explain.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The purpose of the Bill is to confer power upon the Governor in Council to appoint a deputy judge in Admiralty. At present the power to make such appointment is in the hands exclusively of the Judge in * Admiralty. It has happened that the Judge in Admiralty being taken ill unexpectedly, and so ill as not to ibe able even to make the appointment of a deputy judge, there was no possibility of appointing a deputy no matter how great the necessity might be. The present amendment proposes to confer power on the Governor in Council to appoint a deputy judge in such a case.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No.
140	to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
EMr. Doherty.]
Jacques Bureau: Explain.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There are just two provisions in the Bill. One is to give greater power of remand to the judge of the Delinquent Court. The present limitation on the period of time, which is eight days, I think, has been found to work great inconvenience by judges administering the law. This provision is to enable the judge to remand for such time as he may think proper. The second provision has to do with the defining of the situation from the point of view of the application of the Juvenile Delinquent law to persons of the Ruthenian-Greek rite of the Roman Catholic church.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. REIID (Minister of Railways) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 141 respecting the Canadian National railways.
Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING:: Explain.


Mr. J. D. REID:: The House will understand that we cannot make any further extensions to the Canadian National railways until a charter covering the extensions has been granted by Parliament. There are three small extensions required to the present lines of railway in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and we have an item in the Estimates providing for them, but it is necessary to obtain a charter before the work can be proceeded with. Tt is my intention to refer the Bill to the Railway Committee, which is the usual practice in connection with applications for a railway charter.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



SENATE BILL.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 136 (from the Senate) for the relief of James Lyon Lincoln Cobbin.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Jacques Bureau: I should like to ask the Committee of the House of Commons which has supervision of the Parliamentary restaurant if there is any official list of those entitled to be admitted to the restaurant.

If there is, I would ask that it be laid on the table of the House.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It is most unusual for an hon. member to submit a question to a committee.


Jacques Bureau: I submit the question to the chairman of the committee.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I shall submit the question to the chairman of the committee and endeavour to see that an answer is given.


Jacques Bureau: I wanted to direct my question to the chairman of the committee. May I ask for an answer from him?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is most irregular to submit a question to the chairman of a committee in this way.


Jacques Bureau: I thought we could put a question to any member of the House.


Mr. FIELDING:: Yes, upon giving notice in the usual way.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That could be done by giving notice in the usual way, but not upon the Orders of the Day.


Jacques Bureau: I think I am right.



THE BUDGET.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, May 27, the debate on the motion of Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. W. 8. Fielding.
Mr. W. F. OOCKSHUTT (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker, the occasion of the delivery of the Budget Speech in this House of Commons of Canada is probably the most important event that occurs during the session The Budget is of particular moment at this time inasmuch as around it there is being waged a controversy that threatens to be the principal object of attack and defence in the approaching elections whenever they may come. For this reason it is my purpose to devote most of the time at my disposal-I assure you, Sir, that I do not intend to take up an undue portion of the time of the House-particularly to the tariff issue. Before doing so, however, I might perhaps be allowed to make a few running comments upon what has transpired since the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) delivered his Budget Speech to this House about ten days ago.
This was the first opportunity this House had of listening to the new Minister of Finance, and I venture the assertion. Sir, that all will agree that the hon. minister acquitted himself admirably. I do not think that it will be seriously denied that he has discharged his responsible duties in connection with the Budget in an able manner. This, I believe, will be conceded, even though we do not all agree with everything he has proposed; for I admit that protests are arriving in fairly large numbers with regard to certain of the details of the Budget, and paticularly the tax on luxuries. These, however, are matters of comparatively small importance and they can be dealt with better in Committee of the Whole House than in a speech on the Budget. I therefore do not purpose at this present moment to criticise the proposals with Tegard to the luxury tax and other items that are being objected to in certain quarters; I reserve the right to take up these questions when they are before the House in Committee of the Whole.
The new taxes proposed are fairly drastic and are expected to raise a considerable amount of revenue. It -must be evident to all, Mr. Speaker, that a vast revenue is required for this country at the present time; and however much we may desire to see the burdens of the people lessened to as great an extent as possible, it is not practicable at this juncture that reductions of a substantial nature can be made in the tariff or in the income tax, the business profits tax, or in any other provision intended for the raising of revenue. The business profits tax as it has been collected in the past has been more or less of a detriment to manufacturers and others inasmuch as it has tended perhaps to an undue inflation in some respects in the salaries of some of the higher officials; and in other ways it has probably reduced the possibilities of making the necessary extensions to plant which in the past have always been taken out of the results of the year's operations. Every hon. gentleman who is acquainted with the laws of trade will realize that it is not possible, because it is eminently undesirable, to float new capital for any institution too often. If you come before the public too frequently with any security, no matter how gilt-edged it may be, you will encounter great difficulty in selling. Every one knows that a corporation must find it difficult to sell its securities if it is constantly coming before investors and offering those securities in order to make extensions and establish

branches possibly in distant parts. The manufacturer and the merchant have therefore in the past looked to profits for their extensions and betterments, and any one who thinks that a manufacturing concern or a business is all profit has only to enter that department of commercial activity to be convinced to the contrary, and convinced very suddenly and to an alarming extent. My experience in new enterprises has been such, Mr. Speaker that I venture to say that not fifty per cent of the manufacturing projects of the country have succeeded in making any money, and in many cases they have lost the capital that was originally invested. That has been my experience after trying a great many companies, and I can say therefore that the idea is altogether fallacious which some people, and particularly our friends across the way, seem to promulgate, that it is easy to make money out of a business or out of a manufacturing concern.
The income tax is materially increased by the Budget proposals. That probably was also to be expected, but it does not perhaps press very heavily on many of the fairly well-to-do people in this country. It will have this effect, however, as any one can see, that those who are philanthropi-cally inclined, and who from time to time have contributed very liberally to all the charities, and good works of the social world, and of the church, sustaining every beneficent object which is promoted in their community, are going to have less money at their disposal to devote to these purposes, than had the Government not come forward and taken a comparatively large slice of their income. This fact must be apparent to all:	but I say that while
the proposal of the Government may bring money into the coffers of the country it is not necessarily going to interfere with the personal living of the individual so much as it will with the assistance which he has been contributing to the various institutions of the country, which in the past he has felt morally called upon to support.
I had hoped that the large deficit that has been shown in the operation of the National railways would have been taken care of before the Budget was presented. That, however, has not been done and I am not sure whether or not it is contemplated to do it; but I wish to reiterate what I said at the opening of the session, namely, that in my judgment the rates in regard to both passenger and freight traffic should be immediately increased. I say that as one who will have to contribute a very large share towards such increase, but it is only pro-fMr. Coekshutt.l
per that our railways should be placed on a self-sustaining basis so far as operating expenses are concerned. That, as I say, has not been done so far, but with a railway deficit of some $47,000,000 I can see that our treasury will be considerably taxed to take care of this amount to say nothing of all the other financial burdens that the war has placed upon us. I would therefore commend to the Minister of Finance, and particularly to the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) the earliest possible attention to this matter, because I look upon it as a crying necessity, and I trust that before very long some means will be found to meet this immense deficit in connection with the National railways.
Another matter which will receive immediate attention from the Government is the West India trade, and I want to go on record as being very keenly desirous to see largely developed our interchange of trade with the British West Indies. I hope that the delegates who are coming to Ottawa to represent the British West Indies and adjacent territories will receive a sympathetic hearing from the members of the Government and particularly from the members of this House. There is no class of trade which we could extend to better advantage and which should appeal more to our sympathy. Therefore, I hail with satisfaction the idea that these gentlemen are about to enter upon a conference with a view to vastly increasing the trade between Canada and the West Indies. It is well known that our Canadian territory is not in the banana belt and while we can raise in the Niagara district and in some parts of British Columbia a good many products that are almost semi-tropical, we cannot in a sense take care of the products from the tropics, that are required for our people. The West Indies can furnish us all these necessary products, and being under the British flag and being a part of the same Empire as that to which we belong, I am favourable to anything that will bring about closer commercial relations between the British West Indies and the Dominion of Canada.
I believe that is a sound policy; a patriotic policy; and one that should be pursued in the interest of the Empire.
A few years ago we gave a preference to the sugar of the British West Indies and where would we have been to-day had it not been for our foresight? During the war, and since, Canada has been pinched in her sugar supply and we have had great difficulty in getting sufficient for our ra-

quirements but the fact remains that Canada is perhaps better off than many other countries in the world, not barring free trade Great Britain, which, prior to the war, lived on the bounty-fed sugar of Germany and Austria, and which after the war broke out, was short of sugar. When the boys sent home for a parcel they always said: "Do not forget the sugar; do not forget the candies; we cannot get them here.'' That was the result of the foresight of Canada in giving a preference to the sugar planter of the British West Indies at a time when the produce of the West India plantations was being driven from the market by the fierce competition of the bounty-fed sugar of Germany and Austria. The British free trader said:	"It does not
matter; people are getting cheap goods and our policy is to buy in the cheapest market and to sell in the dearest and may it always remain so." It is not a very wholesome thought that the black inhabitants, the coloured races, of our West Indies, should be practically pushed into the ground as a result of -the encouragement of the bounty-fed sugar of Germany and Austria which finally used all the resources that they had gained from their trade with Britain to try and drive the British Empire, British institutions and civilization, generally from the earth, crushing all other peoples who did not place their necks under the heel of the Hun. I am glad that now the West Indies are to receive consideration._


Mr. DEVLIN:: Is the hon. gentleman in favour of a confederation with the West Indies?


William Foster Cockshutt: The political question is a matter involving considerations that differ from the trade question. I am in favour, as I said, of the broadest kind of trade with the West Indies. I scarcely think that the people of Canada are prepared to pit their votes as citizens against those of the inhabitants of the West Indies. I do not think they are prepared to admit that perfect political equality should exist between the inhabitants of the West Indies and Canada. Personally I have very great sympathy with the 'black races. I have felt when I have heard so much about congressional resolutions in favour of Ireland that it would not be a bad thing if we went on record in regard to upholding the rights of the coloured races especially in the south. I was nettled pretty badly when I saw eighty-eight Congressmen telling England how she should govern Ireland while at the same time receiving pictures that would almost bring tears to the eyes of any human being showing five, eight, or ten blacks hanging in a row who had been done to death without trial and without justification at the hands of a ruthless mob. They had been hung up and in some cases, burned at the stake without any trial whatever. Still eighty-eight members of the Congress of the United States are prepared to tell the British Government how they should handle the Irish question while at the same time they are meting out treatment to the races in the south and elsewhere that brings a blush to the cheek of everybody who has any regard for the equality and brotherhood of man. My hon. friend (Mr. Devlin) who I believe may have more or less sympathy with the resolutions that have gone forward might take these matters into his consideration at the same time and if he will bripg in a resolution in condemnation of these outrages I shall be prepared to support it.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of order. I will not qualify the hon. gentleman's language; he has been stating an absolute falsehood in connection with-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hope the hon. member (Mr. Devlin) Will withdraw that term. I am quite sure he does not mean to imply that the hon. member (Mr. Cockshutt) has uttered a falsehood deliberately.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: His statement is absolutely false, Mr. Speaker, I rise-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hope the hon. member will not repeat the statement he made m the first place; otherwise I must say that it is not parliamentary and that it will be necessary to withdraw it.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I have absolutely nothing to withdraw from what I have just said respecting the statement made by the hon. gentleman concerning my conduct in connection with other countries. I asked him a simple question. I asked it as a Canadian citizen and then he turns upon me and makes statements in connection with what my sentiments might be in order to cast a reflection-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: You have the floor, Mr. Speaker.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member is not stating his point of order.

 As to the

wisdom or propriety of the manner in which the hon. member for Brantford interpreted the question submitted toy the hon. member for Wright-that is one thing but I do not apprehend that he encroached upon the rules of the House in what he said.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Is not a rule of the House that one member cannot impute motives to another member?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I did not understand that there was anything in the remarks of the hon. member for Brantford which reflected on the hon. member for Wright.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Oh, no; I have absolutely nothing to say as to a reflection. I am simply on the point of order that the hon. gentleman imputed to my remarks as a Canadian citizen a sense which they did not bear and something that 'I had not mentioned at all and which had no connection with them. I asked him about the blacks and he speaks of Ireland.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sure that the hon. member for Brantford would be the first to deny that he had any intention of imputing motives. It is open to the hon. member to make such argument as he chooses so long as he does not reflect upon the character and motives of the hon. member fox 'Wright, and I do not apprehend that the hon. member has cast any reflection upon the hon. member for Wright.


William Foster Cockshutt: I think, Sir, that you have quite correctly interpreted the rule and stated the fact about my not casting any reflection on the hon. gentleman. I simply said that he possibly had sympathy with the resolution.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: With what?


William Foster Cockshutt: With the resolution sent to Lloyd George.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Which resolution?


William Foster Cockshutt: I do not desire to be questioned further.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Which resolution?


William Foster Cockshutt: My remarks are there on the record, they speak for themselves and it is not necessary that we should continue this discussion.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I still stand toy what I said before.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member for Brantford has the floor; he may not be interrupted except with his consent.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I am not interrupting him, Mr. Speaker, but he imputes to me-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member for Brantford has stated that I have properly indicated his position with respect to the matter.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: What is his position?


William Foster Cockshutt: The hon. member is only endeavouring to interrupt but I shall not be turned aside from my remarks on the Budget by any such matters as he is endeavouring to place before the House.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Be man enough to say to what resolution you refer?


William Foster Cockshutt: I have said that I believe the hon. gentleman if he says he has no sympathy with this resolution.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: What resolution?


William Foster Cockshutt: The resolution that I referred to.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: What resolution?


William Foster Cockshutt: The resolution sent from the Congress of the United 'States by 88 members.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Now you are speaking of another thing.


William Foster Cockshutt: That is what I was speaking of.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Why did you not say so?


William Foster Cockshutt: That is what I was speaking Of all through and I had no intention of ruffling the feelings of the hon. gentleman.


Jacques Bureau: Let the hon. member for Brantford ramble over the United States.


William Foster Cockshutt: 
Mr. BELAND:: Will you support the amendment?


William Foster Cockshutt: I am not saying 1 will support the amendment. I am giving

a little meed of praise where I think it is due.


Jacques Bureau: For fear he might become Minister of Finance again.


William Foster Cockshutt: I cannot say anything so flattering of the member who sits behind him representing Brome (Mr. McMaster). He is continually shouting, "Let the voice of the people he heard."


Jacques Bureau: Hear, hear.


William Foster Cockshutt: "Let the voice of the people prevail."	-


Jacques Bureau: Hear, hear.


William Foster Cockshutt: I am sure we were all astounded to hear from the member for St. John city (Mr. Elkin) that the member for Brome has the distinction of representing the smallest number of people of any member in this House.
Mr. MoMASTER: But think of their quality.


William Foster Cockshutt: He represents between 1.3,000 and 14,000 people. Now, if he can make his voice heard in this House, as he does, on every occasion, in season and out of season, as the representative of only 13,000 people, what would be the sound of his voice if sitting for the division of St, James with its 60,000 electors? Surely it would be as the voice of a modern Stentor. The member for Brome according to his light and knowledge is perhaps one of the most heterodox members of this House m relation to trade policy. I sorry to have to say so, but I say it in all k.ndness, in the hope that my hon friend will mend his ways, because I want to say there are McMasters in Montreal who, I understand, are somewhat closely related to the hon. gentleman, and who deplore his speeches on trade questions; and if he does not give better value in law than he does in business I am sorry for his clients.
I want to say a word or two with regard to the new addition to this House in the person of the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) who yesterday addressed the House for the first time. His speech was most creditable to a young member and would indeed have been creditable to the, oldest and most experienced member. His perfect control of voice, the charm of his manner and the excellence of his matter, as well as the chaste English in which he expressed his views, were models for those who so to speak, are to the manner born. No one could have delivered a finer address. I have, however, to add this
by way of criticism, that after he had told us that he had a fresh mandate from the people, and had received all the light and knowledge that his constituents could give him on the tariff, which is the most important matter before the House at the present time, he had a very milk-and-water statement to present to us. He practically said that he did not run on a protection platform; but he admitted that he had stood on what he called a platform of " moderate protection."


Henri Sévérin Béland: He presented you with
an egg.


William Foster Cockshutt: Yes. I have not
broken it yet, but I hope the yolk will turn out to be good.


Jacques Bureau: It may be a Chinese
egg-


William Foster Cockshutt: The hon. gentleman from St. James succeeds a gentleman whom we all respected and whose demise we regret. The late Mr. Lapointe coming from the same division, had the manliness to get up in this House on the Budget debate of last year and tell a lot of hon. gentlemen over the way where "they got off at," and I think he turned rather savagely on them on that occasion. Not only did he so express himself, but he translated his views into action by voting with the Government on that occasion. Therefore I hope that his bright successor will give his enlightened vote on this occasion in the same way as did his predecessor on a similar occasion, because, with all due respect to my hon. friend, the late Mr. Lapointe faithfully represented the St. James division with its large manufacturing and industrial interests. I believe that- he received no rebuke from any of his eomstituente for his action on the occasion I refer to-at any rate, no protest was made public.
There have been heard, too, some notable speeches by members on this side of the House, particularly by those who very seldom speak. I refer to the hon. member for St. John City (Mr. Elkin), to the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion), to the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin), to the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson), and many others, but the others, perhaps, are older members- yes, and also to the member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Stacey) who made a plea for "team" play between all the people of Canada, and I commend that plea particularly to hon. gentlemen opposite. It is one of the brightest thoughts that were brought before this House during the whole

debate, and we are a Dominion of nine provinces, enough to make a team out of. We can make a country out of this; but that must be done by team play, by co-operation and standing together, not by ploughing the lone furrow or hoeing the lone row and having regard only to our own narrow interest of our particular selves, but by fighting and standing for united team play, for a united country, for a country of nine provinces, each of which looks after his brethren's interests as well as his own. If that policy is engaged in, I feel sure that a bright prospect is in store for this country.	_
I wish to deal with the tariff, -and I must hurry along as I do not desire to detain the House at any great length, this being the principal subject with which I have to deal. I am a man of very moderate views., as is well known to all members of the House, yet, you know, Mr. Speaker, that some of our agricultural friends have dubbed me the high priest of protection. I do not object to that term if I can only live up to the sacredness of the garments that I wear. The priestly office that has been bestowed upon me, by my farmer friends in particular, is one that I esteem rather than despise. I was wondering whether I could .carry out the analogy a little further; and being a man who studies the Scriptures *somewhat, and noting how our friends in the Agrarian corner gathered together the other night on the vote and that they were led in by a chief whip whose name, by the rules of the House, I am not allowed to mention, I may say that from the way they followed him, it appeared to me as though the members of this Agrarian aggregation were Levites, and we find that in the Scriptures, priests and Levites are very closely associated. Taking that thought up and being desirous in a most friendly way of inculcating into my friends across the way a little palatable truth, I am going to speak in a parable as a priest should do, and I hope my Levite friends will try to follow me.
Once upon a time there were two farmers who lived, we shall not say where, but they had adjoining farms. One of them had
10,000	acres upon which he had 10,000 steers.


Mr.   BBLAND@: Some farmer.


William Foster Cockshutt: Yes, my hon. friend may say " some farmer," and rightly so. On the other side of the fence was another farmer who had 50 high-bred cattle, shorthorns, muleys, and others that were accustomed to peaceful habits. Between those

two farms, from end to end, there stretched a barbed-wire fence.


John Flaws Reid: Protection.


William Foster Cockshutt: Yes, that is what I
am coming to, but do not forestall me. These farmers lived on excellent terms with each other. This being a time when we hear a great deal about the brotherhood of man and the desirability of being friends with every people in the world, these neighbours one morning met at the barbed-wire fence, and they got to talking. The man who had the 10,000 steers, who lived on the south side of the fence, if you can realize that, said to the other:	"Do you know, I have
been thinking that, in accordance with the rules of the brotherhood of man and of the teaching of Holy Writ, in the early days there were no fences, no divisions between cattle and cattle, nor between farmer and farmer. I have been thinking, if we could only arrive at an arrangement whereby we could do away with the expense of this immense quantity of barbed-wire and cedar posts, both of which cost a very large amount of money in these days, we could both save a great deal of money, and those 50 cattle of yours, which are in that beautiful meadow with clover up to their knees, would have a wider market and range on the south side of the fence. I propose, therefore, that we abolish this barbed-wire fence, and your short-horns and polled angus can stray over my 10,000 acres, and this would be a vast advantage to your flock as well as mine. Why should we have a division between us? The farmer who lived on the north side of the fence was either from Missouri or Scotland, and he said that he would take the matter into consideration. He went home and talked the matter over with his wife, saying that he thought a good deal of consideration should be given to this friendly neighbour who lived over the way and who had made a friendly proposal, and that it would be a good idea for these 50 short-horns and polled angus to be allowed to enter into company with the 10,000 steers on the other side of the fence, thus having 20,000 acres over which they could stray instead of 10,000. But he said:	" I think we shall look over the
situation a little first and see how it will work out." This was in the spring of the year; the grass was growing; there was food for all of the animals, and they were resting contentedly or grazing on the north side of the line. But later on when, under the summer sun,

drouth set in, the situation did not look quite as good, and this farmer again visited the field, and he found these 10,000 acres that were occupied by the 10,000 steers nipped down pretty nearly to the roots. In other words, the 10,000 steers were too many for the land, and his friend again meets him at the fence and he says: "Well, what have you thought about my suggestion?" "Well," he says, "it has a good many points about it; but I am thinking, now that the drouth has set in, probably my animals will require what is on this side of the fence, and I do not think I can agree, but I will not say definitely now." Later on the situation became more acute, and the farmer on the north side of the fence, visiting this land about the 1st September, finds a ramping, raging number of steers who are pressing against the barbed wire, shaking every cedar post on it, threatening to come on with a rush, and some of the breachy animals nearly going over the top. These animals are Texas steers; their horns look longer now that they are so lean; their ribs can all be counted, and their hip bones are sticking through their hides. The Scotchman goes home and he says:	"Wife, I have
learned a lesson; that fence is not coming down. If the Lord spares me until morning and the fence does not give way, I shall have some more cedar posts in the ground and I shall have an extra strand of barbed wire on the top to keep those breachy brutes on their side of the line."
That is the parable. I want now to bring home to my hon. friends, in a trade way exactly the situation. With a free trade policy, you have no fence; you have no protection; your fields are open. On the other side of the line there is a ramping, raging herd of 10,000 manufacturers who are feeling the pinch of the time, who are ready to put in goods at cost, who are ready to sacrifice any balance left over at the end of the year, and they say to our friends: "Let us in; we will pay for the fence, yes, we will pay the duty;" and as the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) says: "You shall not come over at that; we shall have a dumping clause that will keep you out." That is exactly the position with Canadian industry in relation to the United States. It is all very well to glory about the beauties of free trade; but it is a fair weather policy; it cannot be changed to meet any emergency. No one can show where free trade can come to the rescue of any man who is in danger. Protection is the first law of nature: The 181
Almighty created every creature with beak or claws or teeth to defend itself. The Almighty has placed between nations resources that also can protect them, and the first duty of this or any other Government is to look after the welfare of its own citizens. It is all very well to talk about the brotherhood of man, but you will not be brothers to your fellowmen, you will not be on the earth at all unless you have some regard to the living of yourselves and your families. And you cannot get it in that way. I say in all kindness and without any desire to offend any of my friends that I look upon this Farmers' group as a dangerous one. They are small in numbers hut they are far more dangerous than the Opposition of larger numbers alongside of them. They say they have got into the limelight and are receiving more attention than they deserve. 1 am not sure about that. When a false move is made it should (be nipped in the hud, and I look upon this movement as the most dangerous that has ever been started in the Dominion of Canada. I may be wrong, but that is my belief. These men in the Farmers' group are not the only farmers in this House. We have twenty or thirty farmers sitting on this side of the House, and there are twenty or thirty in the Opposition, who are just as much farmers as my friends of the Agrarian group. I say to my friends down there in all sincerity and kindtness that this country cannot be allowed to pass into the hands of any class no matter how good they may be, no matter how high they stand in honesty, justice, truth and faithfulness. W'e cannot allow this country to pass into the hands of any one class. In the debate on the speech from the Throne I made the. statement that I looked upon this as a class movement. That statement was combated at the time by the leader of the party. Well, I have here their platform, and it bears out all that I said. I propose to read one or two items from this platform which has already been read very often in this House. It is the United Farmers' platform, the new national policy. I think this is the most up-to-date edition, but so many editions have been issued that it is difficult to say whether or not this is really the final edition. When a new party is formed and a definite platform is laid down, we have no recourse but to take these gentlemen at their word. I believe myself that these gentlemen across the way who form the Agrarian party mean to carry out their platform if they get into power. I



say that it is the most destructive policy, from a trade standpoint, that was ever propounded in our country, and that it cannot receive and never should receive the endorsement of the people of Canada. This country is composed of a vast amount of interests and of a vast amount of callings, every man to his occupation, every man to his duty as he sees it; and when men run for office in this country they should run as citizens of Canada and perform their duty in this House as citizens of Canada, and not as representing any one class. I say that with regard to the farmer and *with regard to labour. Let us see what the platform of the United Farmers says. After reviewing the combines and after lambasting protection for fair, it proceeds to the third clause to give definite tariff proposals.
Therefore he it resolved that the Canadian Council of Agriculture, representing the organized farmers of Canada,-
I call special attention to that "the organized farmers of Canada." They do not profess to have called into that Council any labouring man, any merchant, any manufacturer, any railway man, any banker, any educationalist, any clergyman, or anybody except the United Farmers. I do not know how many belong to this organization, but it will be news to me if the United Farmers of Canada represent 25 per cent of the farmers of Canada. I very much doubt it.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I doubt it also.


William Foster Cockshutt: After one class has
laid down a definite platform it is too late in the day to dub it afterwards "A National Policy." You cannot do that. What my hon. friends should do is to get together with their brothers of all parties if they want to form a new party. Let the labouring men come in, who are nearly as numerous as themselves in this Dominion, and who earn their bread by the sweat of their brow every day of the year, winter and summer. Let them call in the miners and the railway men, of "whom there are 150,000 in this country, and all other classes of the community. Every one of them is entitled to be called in to help frame a national platform. It is not good enough to say that you have put the platform out two years ago, and that it is a National Policy that you have propounded. You have propounded simply a farmers' policy, and I say that it represents only the United Farmers, and that there are many excellent farmers outside of the United Farmers, and I hope they will remain outside. My [Mr. Coekshutt.l
hon. friend-and this refers to the leading Levite in the case, in his speech the other night said; "We, the farmers of Canada, desire all food to be admitted free." It sounded to me very much like, "We, the tailors of Tooley Street." Has this hon. gentleman consulted the farmers of Ontario in that respect? I venture to say that if he will make the same proposal to the fruit growers and the vegetable growers and the dairying interests of Western Ontario they will say to him, "You may speak for yourself, but not for us." The farmers in Western Ontario have voted protection time and again, and if this case is properly put up to them at the next election, not by a long way will the Agrarian group carry the farmers of Ontario with them. Nearly every item we have ever consumed has a tax upon it, and I stand for protection for every farm product-butter, cheese, eggs, milk, cream, vegetables of all kinds, fruits of all kinds. I would have every one of them protected, and protected handsomely. Protection has been of vast benefit to the farmers of our district regardless of party. Everybody who knows the conditions knows that. We know that many of the products of the farm are sold in the United States far cheaper than in Canada, and still there is a duty of four cents a pound on hog products. To whose advantage is that? To the farmer's? What about eggs? The farmer across the line in the South has his hens running in the open all the time in winter. His hens do not require to be warmly housed or to have electric lights in the shed to make them believe the day is longer than it is, but our farmers have to have modern equipment for their henhouses, and the Agrarian group would ask them to compete with the American farmer, although it costs our farmers from 4 to 10 cents more a dozen, and I think that is very much und'er the mark, to produce their eggs in winter than in summer, while the hens in the South are running in the open all the year round. The same is true of sheep. They run at large and need no protection in the winter. They are out in the open and pick up their living all the time. The same is true of cattle and horses. Yet hon. gentlemen across the way ask our farmers to compete with the farmers of the South in these different lines. Everybody knows that the American crop is always earlier than ours, and the early vegetables and early fruits from the United States would take the cream off the market. Everybody knows that that would be the result of removing our protective barriers. If they were let down, many of our fruit men and

vegetable men in Western Ontario would be driven out of business.
Coming back to the platform of the United Farmers, this is what they propose:
(a)	An immediate and substantial all-round reduction of the customs tariff.
Though I am a protectionist I am prepared to stand more or less in line with that. But I say to my farmer friends that they do not carry that out in the later part of their platform, as I shall show in a moment. It goes on:
(b)	By reducing the customs duty on goods imported from Great Britain to one-half the rates charged under the general tariff, and that further gradual, uniform reductions be made in the remaining tariff on British imports that will ensure complete free trade between Great Britain and Canada in five years.
Mr. Speaker, did you ever hear a more preposterous proposition for a country such as this? Do our friends opposite realize what that means? I do not think they do. Free trade with Britain means free trade with the world. It means that American goods would come into Canada via Great Britain. It is just like having three wells of water connected by three pipes. The three pipes will convey the water to absolutely the same level in every one of the wells. You connect the United States with Great Britain in free trade and allow Great Britain to connect up with Canada and you will have American goods going to Liverpool and coming into Canada by the back door. That is what it means. Free trade with Great Britain means free trade wdth the world. The platform goes on:
By endeavouring to secure unrestricted reciprocal trade, etc.
Well, we have had that and the parable and I do not intend to pursue that further.
By placing all foodstuffs on the free list.
That would suit my hon. friend the leading Levite; I have already dealt with it. Now, then, I come to something spicey:
That agricultural implements, farm and household machinery, vehicles, fertilizers, coal, lumber, gasoline, illuminating fuel and lubricating oils he placed on the free list, and that all raw materials and machinery used in their manufacture also be placed on the free list.
Did you ever hear anything more astounding than that Mr. Speaker? The hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) yesterday read a list which took him ten or fifteen minutes to go through, and it showed what would be embraced in that class. It would hit directly and indirectly every industry in Canada, because they do not pro-181J
pose to put these items alone on the free list but all materials that enter into their manufacture, and that would cover all the subsidiary interests that supply these various factories. It would wipe out the protective tariff altogether, practically speaking. I have here the figures as published in the Globe of the farm implement industry. I have not time to read the article, nor do I desire to prolong my remarks unduly; but it states that there is an amount of capital, in round numbers, of $74,000,000 involved in the manufacture of agricultural implements and the total product is $34,000,000 per annum. I should think that that is the smallest amount of manufactured goods from so large a capital turned out in any industry in Canada. What is the reason? The hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) stated the reason the other evening and that is, the long terms of credit that are given, the manufacturers getting their money back once a year. It therefore takes over two dollars, pretty nearly $2.50, to produce $1 worth of goods, getting returns once a year, whereas some businesses turn their capital over five, six, seven and eight times in the year. That is a feature that should not be lost sight of. Now, Mr. Speaker, the term "implement of production" is a very comprehensive one and is used very glibly by -some people. It embraces almost every conceivable tool from a needle to a threshing machine. Everything that one can think of as an instrument for the production of anything that is made comes with-ing that category, and it is a most absurd term 'by which to classify a tariff. There was one implement, Mr. Speaker, which was not productive and which was introduced once into the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and I do not suppose that hon. gentlemen intend to include such an implement as that in the classification. But taking it all in all, this very broad term embraces pretty nearly everything we can think of.


Jacques Bureau: What was the implement to which you refer?


William Foster Cockshutt: That implement was one that called upon this Government to guarantee bonds in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific and I think that the Minister of Finance will tell you what it cost. I do not think that you should be anxious to introduce any more implements of that kind in Canada. That implement cost $10,000,000 in one year and we had to guarantee at 100 bonds that were selling as low as 84, which would mean some 1G

cents on the dollar. The Minister of Finance can give the figures, but I am only reminding hon. gentlemen that when they want all implements free it is not desirable to embrace that particular description of implement in the list, and it would be well to mate some mental reservation in regard to that point.


Jacques Bureau: That implement does not fatten the short horns.


William Foster Cockshutt: No, but it makes some hole in the side of the long horns. The document further says:
That all tariff concessions granted to other countries be immediately extended to Great Britain.
That does not amount to much after what I have said. This is another proposal :
By a direct tax on unimproved land values, including all natural resources.
I hope that when the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) speaks he will tell us how much revenue that is going to raise. I do not think that the Minister of Finance will be very materially assisted if he adopts the proposal contained in that section. The next suggestion for raising revenue is:
By a graduated personal income tax.
What do they mean by that clause? We think we have a good income tax already which is hitting us pretty hard; what more do hon. gentlemen want in that respect? I shall refer to that matter in a moment or two, because it is worthy of note. The next clause reads:
By a graduated inheritance tax.
They are not willing to let a man die free and enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but after he is gone they must tax him through his family, his widow and children who remain to enter into the labours of the old gentleman when he is called to his long home. The Ontario Government has already gone a long w.ay in that direction and I trust my hon. friends are not going to make the future world more uncomfortable than it is likely to be for a good many of us.


Jacques Bureau: They want you to abandon your wealth.


William Foster Cockshutt: The next clause in this platform reads :
By a graduated income tax on the profits of corporations.
I think we have that already, good and hard, as they say. Our friends, Mr. 
Speaker, I notice are very good at compounding doses for the other man but they are not so ready to take any of their own medicine. It is very much like the man who mixes the nauseous compound. He is eager to prescribe it for the other chap but he says, "I don't think my stomach needs such medicine at the present time,"


Jacques Bureau: Do as I say and not as
I do.


William Foster Cockshutt: Yes, indeed, that is just the idea that underlies this suggestion. Now, Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand the Ottawa Evening Citizen of May 7 which has some remarkable headlines. I read the following in that paper:
Vigorous criticism of the income tax system before Commons Committee to-day.-Too many questions, and many wealthy men said to be escaping its provisions. Many defaulters found in Toronto.-Ten thousand letters sent out in two weeks. No million dollar incomes in Canada.
These are the headlines which appear in this newspaper and they make fairly interesting reading. I understand that our Agrarian friends were keen on the hunt for some one that was not paying up. Now, I have not heard of any particular rush on the part of our Agrarian friends across the way to get into the list of those who have paid up. In reading this item I find it states that 80 members of the House made no returns in the year 1917. I want it understood, Mr. Speaker, that I was not one of the eighty, and I think that if every other man who is not would get up and say so we would know who the eighty were.
Mr. BE1LAND: I did not make any return.


William Foster Cockshutt: The investigation reveals that there are eighty men who did not possess $500 income outside of the indemnity which they received that year. I do not cast any reflections on any of those gentlemen, but when people tell us that they want an income tax I certainly think they ought to live up to the privileges of the one they have got before they try to get another. In Ontario, with 183,000 farmers, I am told that there were only 314 who made returns. That does not show any very great rush to get to the tax. collector. I am told further, by the Commissioner of Taxation, that in the city of . Toronto, which is stated to contain a large body of defaulters, there was more income tax paid in one particular year than by the three western provinces. of Canada added together. Yet, notwithstanding that fact, this paper says that there is a large body of defaulters in Toronto. I am not from

the city of Toronto, Mr. Speaker, and therefore I can say a word or two with regard to that city in this respect; and I desire to state now that there is no city in the Dominion of Canada which, during the whole term of the war, made more sacrifice and was more willing to contribute to the cause in both men and money, than was Toronto.
It is a most unfair and unwarranted slander upon the chief city of the province of Ontario to head it up " a large body of defaulters in the city of Toronto." When our friends of the Agrarian party propound this income tax policy I want them to get busy and get in their own returns. I think everybody should be called upon to keep books. I have to make my returns to the last dollar so far as I can make them up. I want to do my duty to the country.' Even with the increased amount that the Minister of Finance has called for, I will try to hold up my end though it may be unfair to my charities because I cannot give voluntarily and have it taken from me by force as well. I must first look after what the Government calls for. Speaking as a priest to the Levites I ask my brethren across the way, nay, I entreat them, to live up to their principles. I do not want to be too hard on my hon. friends and I am glad to see them smile-I like to see them smile- I aim a good friend of the farmer although they do not always recognize it. I am not saying anything here that I am not prepared to say in any township of my own county and I have in it two farmers particularly who are amongst the hottest in the U.F.O. I can mention two or three names land I will do so before I get through. I want to see the .farmers represented in this House. I think *the farmers are not here in sufficient numbers and I want them to be here. I also want the labour men to be represented here. When my hon. friends say that 'I represent the manufacturers I want to tell them that the statement is hot based upon fact. I have never been a member of the Manufacturers' Association in my life. Upon only two occasions have I ever entered their dobrs and that was upon their invitation. I am yery broad-minded in regard to the farmer. On four different occasions in my political life of upwards of forty years, although the city number over three-quarters of the population of my riding, I backed farmer candidates in the county of Brant. I will give you their names. You will recognize one of them, I am sure. I backed Colonel Fraser, Peter Doran, Thomas Lloyd Jones and Paul Hoffman, all respectable men. When they
,ran, they did not run as fanners but they .ran as citizens of Canada. Any man that .cannot enter this House as representing the whole people of Canada, in my judgment, should not sit in Parliament.


Jacques Bureau: Did they run as Conservatives or as farmers?


William Foster Cockshutt: They ran as Cbn-
.servatives and as citizens of Canada and Conservatives are good citizens of Canada. I would not refer to myself as a Conservative. ,1 do not think I have called myself a Conservative since the Union Government was formed. I am not going to say what I will call myself in the future but I have hacked the Union Government and I am going to stay with it at present. I have not gone back on the Union Government except ,on one oocasion and that was that I might support my friends the farmers. I voted with my good friend the hon. member for .Red Deer (Mr. Clark); I voted with the .Levites and others and I voted against the proposals of last years' Budget? I voted to show my sympathy with the farmer. In fact, I am a small farmer myself. Although ,1 say I am a "small farmer" yet I do quite a little farming. I have farmed enough to know the difficulties; I have farmed enough to know what these gentlemen are up against. Perhaps I will qualify as an agriculturist rather than as a farmer. A judge ,in my county gave a definition of the difference between an agriculturist and a farmer. He said that a farmer is a man who makes his money in the country and spends it in the city, while an agriculturist is a man who makes his money in the city and spends it in the country. I think it hits off the iSituation as far as my farming is concerned, and probably that of a good many others, hut I have been farming enough to know the difficulties and dangers which beset the .agriculturist and the farmer. I have the very broadest sympathy with the ideas of these gentlemen, but if they want to form a new party and that is a very laudable enterprise, they should call together all the .citizens of Canada and call them not after they have got their platform constructed but .call them before, and ask them to help them .to make it. Let them help to put down a *few of the planks and if they do that they will have to tear up some of those that .they have already put in 'and they will have a platform that will be a good deal better .than the one they have now.
What about the labour man? We are told that an alliance is to be formed between the labour men and the farmers and

that is where the danger lies to a certain extent but on-ce the labour man realizes what this Agrarian party is he will not be long with it. I have spoken with a great *many labour men. We have in our county two or three of the hottest U.F.O.'s that could be found in the province of Ontario. I have had the privilege of conversation with them, I have watched their operations for years and I may say that for the last fifteen years they have been agitating in this, direction. The U.F.O. has not been formed to fight the tariff. The tariff is not what brought the farmers of Ontario into line,- it was to fight the Military Service Act that the U.F.O. was formed. It is only two years ago that the stormiest delegation that I have ever witnessed came down to Ottawa, not to fight the tariff, but to fight the Military Service Act which called for their sons being sent to the front when the tide of battle hung in the balance and it was a question whether our enemy, the Hun, would be the victor. If the enemy had won this country would have neither farm nor factory but it would have been under the heel of the Hun. These gentlemen when they came to Ottawa even threatened the Parliament Buildings. I know I met quite a mob of them at the front door of the Museum. They were down not to fight the tariff but to protest against this Government calling up their sons although it had been stated that farmers' sons would be more or less exempt.
All honour to the farmer who lives according to his principles but as I have said the working men of this country are almost as numerous as the farmers and they are entitled to the very same consideration as the farmers. Figures have been quoted ; howing that the production of the factory e xceeds that of the farm by $1,000,000,000 p ;r annum in Canada. Remember, this is n ) longer a purely agricultural country. My Levite friends desire to be fair, I am sure, but they do not want to say that it is a purely agricultural country when the statistics show that we produce about $1,000,000,000 more in the factories than on the farms. That being the fact, why should you ignore this vast body of labour? When you speak of the manufacturer you want to remember that he is not just one man. The manufacturer may consist of a manager, or a president, or some of his associates, and five or ten directors. The directors may represent anywhere from ten to ten thousand shareholders holding script in all parts of Canada and who are dependent upon the
[Mr. CockshuttJ
operations of the factory more or less for a living for themselves and their families. That manufacturer has in his factory from ten to one thousand, and in many cases five thousand hands, and when you are speaking of a certain manufacturer you are not speaking of favours to one man but you are speaking of the dinner pail of thousands of working men on whose labour depends the maintenance of successful industry.
Canada has ishown that in competition with the world, under fair conditions, she is the equal of almost any nation on the earth. As our capital, appliances and our markets are :as good as those of other nations we can meet and hold our own with the best of them; but in a thinly populated country comprising 4,000,000 square miles 'and with our people scattered from coast to coast we cannot compete with the skillful manipulation and equipment and the enormous product of the factories to the south. They can run week in and week out, year in and year out, on one particular line, whereas Iwe have to make a hundred lines and produce them in small quantities. In other words, a iman selling one hundred reapers and making $50 on each reaper would realize $5,000 per annum; but if he sold 1,000 reapers and made $25 on each, his return would be $25,000 per annum, or five times as much as in 'the case of the original proposition. This being the case it is the amount of output that we have that will enable us to compete.
Now, I say in all sincerity to my hon. friends across the 'Chamber: do not begin to pull down-this is not the time to do so-build up.


Jacques Bureau: Yes, build up a tariff.


William Foster Cockshutt: If this free trade policy -that I h-ave berated imore or less in a very kindly way is made the fight at the next election, you are going to see more bitterness engendered in Canada than in any fight that has been waged in this country in a great number of years. Final'y the issue is going to resolve itself into this -the city against the country, and the country against the city. It would be the most deplorable kind of fight that could possibly be conducted-


Jacques Bureau: Then do not suggest it.


William Foster Cockshutt: -and while I have no desire to see my hon. friends opposite occupy the Government benches I would ten times sooner see them seated there than I would to see there the representatives of any mere class in Canada. It- is not

safe for the country that such a thing should take place-it is not safe for our civilization and for our Confederation- and I beseech my hon. friends across the way as a priest-	;	( i !


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Foster Cockshutt: -addressing most contrite Levites that they will take this under their serious consideration and bring down a materially altered platform which both sides can support, and thus let us have one united party work for the real welfare of our beloved country.


Mr. ARTHUR TRAHAN (Nicolet):: Mr. Speaker, although a member coming from the province of Quebec it affords me great pleasure to stay here at the wmek end-
Mr. LAPOINTE-:	Hear, hear.


Arthur Trahan: to take part in this debate. I do not see the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Mackie) present.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Trahan: Where is he?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Do not forget that to-day is Friday.


Arthur Trahan: Has the hon. member gone for a week-end trip? I leave the answer to the members of this House. As my hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Beland) reminds me to-day is Friday and it is also fish day.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: The hon. member for
East Edmonton has gone home.


Arthur Trahan: The annual Budget is
the diagnosis of the financial and economic health of the nation. The speech delivered the other day by the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) reveals that our country is suffering severely from a very serious disease consisting of a progressive weakness of our national credit. It has been created through excess of consumption, deficiency of production and financial and fiscal sluggishness complicated with extravagance and waste both public and individual. It has also been created by currency inflation, inflated bank deposits, and inflated public debt. As the general manager of the Bank of Montreal said on December 1st, 1919: " even with a full measure of faith in our country wTe must find the near future very difficult to visualize;" and according to the president of the same bank " the state of the national finances deserves a wider and more profound consideration than the subject appears to receive	 The situation is a very serious one	 The
feeling as to the future is less optimistic than it has been."
To use the very expression of the Finance Minister himself Canada is faced with a pyramid of debt. Our country is to-day mortgaged by a net debt of $2,273,305,436.92. It has increased by $1,937,308,586.78 in six years and by $210.51 per head of the population as compared with 1914, since at that time it stood at $335,996,850.10 and at $43.69 per head, whereas now it is $254 per head, more than one-eighth of $2,000 the estimated individual wealth per head of the nation.
This tremendous increase of our net debt is not wholly due to the war for, as -stated by the Finance Minister, " our total expenditure for the war up to and including March 31, 1920, now amounts to $1,674,000,000." Thus we have, independently of the war, an increase in our net debt of $273,308,586.78 resulting from the bad administration of the Government, of their yearly deficits, and of their iniquitous transactions such as, for instance, the Canadian Northern deal. i
Our annual interest- -charges which were $12,000,000 in 1914 now amount to $142,000,000, that is to say nearly twelve times more than before the war, and our total yearly expenditure is 300 per cent more than in 1914.
Moreover, our currency	has	beenwatered by the	Government	to a	mostdisgraceful extent and, as	i the	consequence, the	cost of	living	hasincreased by	125 per	cent	andthe purchasing	power of	the	dollar has been	reduced to	47	cents.
Indeed, in August, 1914, at the outbreak of the war, our gold reserve was 86 per cent of the total issue of Dominion notes, amounting then to $112,793,833.28, and it is now reduced to 32 per cent-a loss of 54 cents in the dollar, since the total Dominion note issue is at present, according to the minister himself, $311,932,791, and our gold reserve held by the Government was $96,161,366 on March 31 last, as compared with $97,136,426.85 at the outbreak of the war in August, 1914. Consequently the Dominion note issue has increased from August, 1914, to March 31, 1920, by $199,138,958, and the gold reserve held by the Government has decreased by $975,060,-nearly one million dollars.
This is contrary to the law, which requires the Government to hold in gold 25 per cent up to $50,000,000 of note issue, and dollar for dollar for any further issue. If the law had been observed, we should have

(c)	Reward of manual labour;
(d)	Reward of lands and capital.
Supply and demand alone are unable to
modify prices which necessarily include all these elements. If selling prices cannot pay all these costs, on account of the so-called law of supply and demand, production, transportation and commerce would immediately lay aside their work. Whatever may toe the supply, whatever may toe the demand, generally prices cannot fall belorw the total costs above mentioned; their variations are solely determined by the variations o'f the cost of each of their constituent elements.
Consequently, we may safely assert that national expenditure forms a component part of the cost of production. Thie cost has been increased since 1914 because, to a large extent, the whole of Canadian production is burdened with national expenditures far greater than in 1914. At that time, when we were buying one dollar's worth of goods, we were paying, at the highest, four per cent of national expenditure; we were then buying an article or part of an article in which we would receive at least 96 cents' worth of work and invention. This year, for the same purchase, we pay 10 per cent of national expenditure. Our purchasing power has then decreased in that proportion. We pay daily the cost of the war and other extravagant expenditures of the Government. Every time we buy a pound of butter we give ten per cent above the real value of butter in order to reimburse the millions which we have spent on acount of the war and of the bad administration of the Government. Mark, you, Sir, national expenditures are borne by production. Taxation, either direct or indirect, enters into the price of goods. While in 1914 the total expenditure was $186,241,047.63, this year it will exceed $600,000,000. The sum of $600,000,000 enters into the selling prices of goods, and by his Budget proposals the Minister of Finance instead of alleviating the burden of taxation aggravates it by $70,000,000 of new taxation which will increase so much more the cost of living. Truly, Mr. Speaker, this is empirical treatment to cure the disease of the high cost of living. The watchword of the Government seems to toe "More taxation, more expenditure."
Mr. McMAjSTER: Hear, hear.


Arthur Trahan: The Liberal watchword is "Less taxation, less expenditure." There must be direct Government action to adopt the policy of retrenchment and to curtail
[Mr. Trahan. 1
the public expenditures. Will it endanger the economic situation of the whole country if the Government were practising thrift and economy? I say to the Government: Wipe off the Estimates the $12,000,000 for the Militia, and the $20,000,000 for shipbuilding, modify your railway policy in order to avoid the $47,000,000 of deficit caused by the great mistake of public ownership; and economize $20,000,000 for the Civil Service, and then you will this year have a saving of nearly $100,000,000. Then you will not need the new taxation, which will amount to nearly $70,000,000, and you *will contribute to a certain degree towards lowering the cost of living toy reducing the net cost of production.
Another method to attain this end would be the adoption of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). The -more, Mr. Speaker, you study the financial and economic conditions of the world and the financial -and economic conditions of Canada, the more you are convinced that it is neither by absolute free trade nor toy extreme protection -that you can -give to our economic life the wideness which it needs. As I said on another occasion, a judicious, practical and patriotic opportunism must, above all, during this period of hardship, actuate and direct every true Canadian in -the most noble enterprises for the economic restoration of this Dominion. Neither protection nor free trade are dogmas, and it is our duty to determine to what extent, under press of circumstances, it is proper to practise commercial freedom.
Every one admits- that in- order to restore our financial and economic situation we must increase production and produce more cheaply. Well, Sir, is it not a fact that protective or prohibitive duties on raw material and on instruments of production have a direct -effect upon the net cost of production o-f industries and of agriculture? Yet, to increase our production we need raw materials, -because, first of all, the manufacturer is a consumer; he cannot produce without tools and raw material, and, very often, he is obliged to import them.
The same must toe said o-f the farmer who, before toeing a producer, is a consumer, and needs agricultural implements and many other articles which should, if imported, co-me into this country free of customs taxation. Rapid and easy importation o-f these articles is absolutely necessary to our economic restoration. Exce-ssive customs duties are drawbacks which contribute to increase the cost of living and to raise the price of imported -goods and, as a consequence, the

price of goods manufactured or produced in Canada. Some producers may 'benefit thereby, but masses of consumers will suffer. What are the high protectionists doing? They endeavour, by prohibitive duties, to substitute political prices for economic prices, and to eliminate all products similar to those which they manufacture so as to Oblige their fellow-countrymen to buy only from them. By this system they can raise their prices by adding to them the duty and the cost of transportation plus the exchange on foreign products imported. Their profits do not arise from economic conditions; they arise from the action these protectionists have been able to exercise, with the help of the Government, against the consumers, who are the masses of the people.
The present Government very truly constitutes a union with high protectionists to oppress the people by way of excessive customs taxation. Under such a regime Canada is a loser, because high prices lessen consumption of national products at home as well as abroad. It is not at all unlikely that the nominal value of these products is to be greater, prices being higher; but quantities are lower. This, Sir, is an exact description of our economic situation as shown by the Minister of Finance in his Budget Speech; our production has decreased, and the prices of all commodities and necessities of life have more than doubled.
Is it not then proper that, with a view to the amelioration of our present difficulties, Parliament should adopt the amendment proposed by my hon. friend the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding)? Surely an immediate revision of the tariff in the liberal sense suggested by this amendment should be made. This reform is obviously one of the necessary means to ensure the triumph of the policy of increasing production by reducing its net cost. Such a policy will better the present conditions in Canada and enable this country to meet its heavy financial obligations.
The hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen), answering the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) quoted at considerable length extracts from reports of commissions appointed by the British Government, in order to prove that in Great Britain there is a movement towards protection. Apart from the fact that no action has been taken upon those reports, may I be permitted, Sir, to point out to the hon. minister that the Supreme Council of the Peace Conference has reached conclusions which, in my judgment, contradict the argument of the hon. minister and are in complete harmony with the amendment before the House. Let me read extracts from this Declaration by the Supreme Council as printed in Hansard of May 3, 1920:
Summary of conclusions.-In view of the above considerations,-
They have been speaking of the inflation of currency, the expansion of credit, etc.
In view of the above considerations, the Supreme Council, after a careful survey of this vitally urgent problem in all its aspects, agree upon the following recommendations with a view to the amelioration of the present economic difficulties of Europe :-
That the states which have been created or enlarged-
And those states include France, Japan and other countries.
-as the result of the war should at once re-establish full and friendly co-operation, and arrange for the unrestricted interchange of commodities in order that the essential unity of European economic life may not be impaired by the creation of artificial economic barriers.
The Powers at the Conference recognize the necessity for continued co-operation between the Allies and for removing obstacles to the easy interchange of essential commodities.-
And what are the obstacles, Sir, if not excessive customs duties?


Mr. McMASTER:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Trahan: I continue to read:
-They will continue to consult together regarding the provision and distribution of necessary raw materials and foodstuffs with a view to the early restoration of normal conditions.
I may say that it is this question of commercial freedom which has been the main cause of the opposition of the Republican Senators to the ratification of the Peace Treaty by the United States. The American Protective Tariff League has entered protest after protest against the principle of commercial freedom which is embodied in the League of Nations. And. what are we asking by the amendment, if not to solve the present difficulties by developing our commercial freedom, and so admitting of an easy interchange with other countries of foodstuffs and other commodities and of the instruments of production?
An additional reason for supporting the amendment lies in the fact that Europe owes Canada at least 5420,000,000. Europe cannot pay that debt if a prohibitive tariff wall is maintained against its products, and as a result the outflow of goods from Canada will be checked. Yet if -we increase our production, we must export our surplus to foreign

markets. To produce, to save, and to export are the three chief means of bringing about our economic recuperation.
On the whole, Sir, I submit that the amendment before you, and the resolutions concerning the tariff adopted at the Liberal Convention of August, 1919, constitute a policy of moderate free trade, which I heartily endorse, because it serves well the best interests of all classes of the community and of this great Dominion.
At Six o'clock the House took recess.
After Hecess.
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.


Mr. JAMES McISAAC (Kings, P.E.I.):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it goes without saying that a Budget Speech, unfolding as it does the financial condition of the country and disclosing to us our position as regards our fiscal policy, from year to year, is one of the most, if not the most, important utterances made in Parliament. If this be true, generally speaking, it was particularly true during the period of the war, and during the years following the war. Perhaps at no time during the period of the war, or before or since the war, has a Budget Speech been anticipated with so much interest and, possibly, in some quarters, even with some anxiety, as at this session. A combination of circumstances, which need not be enumerated in detail, flung around the Budget Speech of this session these peculiar conditions. . Our great debt, incurred principally in consequence of the war, our large expenditures and the immense amount of money required to be raised to meet them, necessarily made the Budget Speech of this session of paramount importance. Under all the circumstances, I think the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) deserves congratulation and commendation in the highest degree for having evolved out of all these conditions a Budget so compre-.hensive, sane and reasonable as the one he has brought down to the House. It is true that the Budget will not please everybody, and I am sure the minister had no idea when he presented it that it would please all the members of this House or all the people of this country. Also, in the working out of some of the schedules having to do with different methods of taxation, some little confusion or dissatisfaction may arise here and there, and it is altogether possible that when these matters come to

be considered and discussed in committee, the Minister of Finance, in his wisdom and judgment, after having weighed all the representations that may be brought to his notice in regard to -them may be disposed to make some amendments here and there in the resolutions. That, however, is a matter of detail which does not come within the scope of the discussion on the Budget proper.
As the Minister of Finance, in the comse of his presentation of our financial position, unfolded the various elements that enter into our fiscal system and the different activities and operations of a national character that go to make up our great system of finance and supply us with the funds to meet the necessary expenditures of the country, I, for one, w>as deeply ininterested in the situation he disclosed. In the first place the Minister of Finance gave us figures of the trade of the country by decades covering a considerable period of years, and I must say that I was absolutely amazed at the growth of our trade. From 1909 the total trade of the country increased from about half a billion dollars in that year to over two billion dollars in 1919. That struck me as marvellous advancement. In the twelve months from 1919 to 192t our trade increased over the previous year by over $165,000,000, the unrevised figures for 1920 being $2,351,174,886. That was a marvellously good showing, I thought. We should keep those figures in mind as a basis in considering the amounts of proposed expenditure which are placed before us for the coming year.
The Minister of Finance also gave figures as to the products of the soil. The production of wheat, for instance, steadily increased from one ten year period to another. From 1910 to 1919 the increase was over 60,000,000 bushels. The last named date, shows the total production was $193,000,000. Other agricultural productions, field crops and farm products also increased from 1917 to 1919 to the value of over $350,000,000, and in the last named year the total value of these productions was $1,975.8411,000. These figures are gratifying in the very highest degree. They show that our country, with its various sources of production, is in a most healthy condition, and they give us confidence that if our people show energy and perseverance, and get rid of some of their extravagance, and make sacrifices in some degree proportionate to those they made when the tocsin of war sounded and they flew to arms to. save the Empire, we

shall be easily able to meet all our obligations.
Our manufacturing industries also show a healthy advance. The value of manufactured products in 1915 was shown to be $1,407,137,140 and in 1917 the value had increased to over $3,000,000,000, an increase of about $1,600,000,000. Bank deposits by the .public in Canada increased from 1918 to 1919 by about $172,000,000, the last year showing a total of $1,841,478,895. Be it remembered that in addition to this money deposited in the banks by the people of Canada in these two years, the people of this country had deposited with the Government of Canada by the purchase of Victory bonds about $1,500,000,000. That shows how great are the resources o.f Canada, and what a firm and stable basis we have for greater progress and expansion, so that we may go on from year to year and from decade to decade advancing to the place among the galaxy of nations which Canada is destined to reach.
A very important part of the Budget Speech and of the Finance Minister's presentation of the financial condition of the country was the national debt. It is of the greatest importance that we should take inito serious consideration the very great deibt with which the people of this country are confronted. On the other hand, when we consider the almost boundless natural resources of our nation, and what has been done in the last forty years to develop those resources; when we take into account the financial position we are in to-day even feeing this great load of debt; when we consider the enterprise and energy of our people, there is no room for doubt that we shall 'be able to meet all legitimate obligations, no matter how great they may be, that Canada may assume in the public interest, The debt is great, of course, but the larger part of it was incurred in consequence of the war, and no true patriot who loves his country will say that, when the need arose and we were called upon to put all our energies into the titanic struggle to bring it to a successful issue, we were no1! justified in incurring (these obligations. In view of all the circumstances I think we have made a marvellous showing.
Our gross debt is $3,014,483,774.12. In this connection I wish to say that the Minister of Finance did a very frank and courageous thing in not considering as active and realizable some of those items which go to make up the difference of $1/178,537,461.27 between the gross debt and the net debt. To all
intents and purposes these investments were assets, and under ordinary circumstances there would be a great temptation to a Finance Minister to show them as active assets. The minister did not desire to retain on the books of the Finance Department anything that was not essentially an asset. These assets to which I have referred were quiescent, and the minister wisely and courageously set them aside, placing them in suspense account. There they remain, and at some future time they may be resurrected and rejuvenated; and when that is brought about our financial condition will be improved, for any interest that may arise from them will be in the nature of treasure [DOT]trove. I think that the Minister of Finance [DOT]took an exceedingly wise position, and what he has done has been to ensure that no undergrowth or brushwood, so to speak, might clog our financial statue. For these reasons the minister deserves the highest commendation which this House can fender [DOT]him. The net debt is placed at $2,273,305,436, and starting from this point we must see what our actual position is. The minister has given us a statement of the revenue and [DOT]expenditures for the year ending March 31, 1920, and we learn that during that year the revenue from ordinary sources was the .greatest in our history, amounting to some $388,000,000. If we subtract from that sum the ordinary expenditures we find a surplus. Some people contend that an amount is not a surplus unless all revenues are greater than all expenditures in the statement of accounts, but in the language of our fiscal arrangements, and even by reference to the dictionary, it will be discovered that anything is a surplus that remains after ordinary expenditure has been provided for. Having paid $349,000,000 in ordinary expenditures, we therefore have a surplus of $39,000,000 to be applied to capital expenditure. Of course, there is always capital expenditure, investments, outlays, etc., and these amounted last year to $187,856,991, bringing the total expenditure, ordinary and capital, for the past year to over $536,000,000. That includes the total outlay of Canada for the year apart from what was spent for war purposes, wThich can by no possibility be regarded as ordinary expenditure. We trust that in a few years we shall have [DOT]finished paying off this peculiar liability, which was incurred under such regrettable and memorable circumstances.
That disposes of the consideration of our finances up to the 31st of March, 1920. The next phase of the Budget deals with the revenues and expenditures for the year on

which we have entered ending 31st March, 1921. At this stage, of course, as is the case with every Budget, no definite statements can be made as to what the revenues or expenditures of the year may be; we can only estimate them and we must be guided in our Estimates by the figures which we know in connection with past years and by the activities of our different departments and the various enterprises operating in the country. Consequently, the expenditure for this period can only be estimated. Let us now consider the expenditure that the Minister of Finance estimates for the year upon which we have entered. The total expenditure for the current year is estimated as follows:
Main Estimates and Supplementaries about	$574,000,000
Railways	 25,000,000
Floating obligations	 74,058,000
Total	$673,000,000
Against these estimated expenditures what amount of money have we, and where is it to come from? The sources of revenue are as follows:
Estimated revenue from ordinary sources	$381,000,000
Cash on hand and outstanding
accounts	 190,000,000
Total	$571,000,000
This will leave an adverse balance of somewhere in the vicinity of $100,000,000, which amount has to be provided for by means outside of the ordinary. At this point the Minister of Finance did another courageous thing, something for which he certainly deserved to be praised. He lopped off the extra war tax of 7J per cent and at one stroke removed a tax which brought us $30,000,000 yearly. It was considered that as this tax had only been imposed for war purposes, the time hadi perhaps come when it might be removed in order that the tariff might not toe considered unduly high. Just consider the sacrifice we are making by the lopping off of this $30,000,000 of revenue. Up to this stage the Minister of Finance has been removing sources of taxation and making the task of obtaining revenue a more difficult task for himself. Now, we come to the consideration of the question of how the revenue is to be raised to meet the balance between the expenditure and the ordinary, estimated revenue.
At this point the minister says:	"We
shall have no more loans." I wish to dwell for a moment on the question of loans.
IMr. Mclsaac.]
Canada, in so far as her domestic loans are concerned, stands in an enviable position. When we were in the midst of the war, when we were confronted with extraordinary expenditures, when -we were not able to obtain the necessary money by loans outside of Canada, the then Minister of Finance turned to our own people. Is not the record of Canada in so far as her Victory loans are concerned a most admirable and highly creditable one? The spontaneity, enthusiasm and generosity with which the people poured their funds into the coffers of the Government for the purpose of carrying on the public business is one of the elements that constitute Canada's greatness at the present day and one that has gone far to impress the other nations of the world with the fact that she is great in war, great in peace, and great in finance.
The Minister of Finance presents to us, in order to make up the balance between the ordinary estimated revenue and the expenditure, several different phases of taxation. I am sure it will be generally accepted that taxation is not an agreeable subject under any consideration. The people of this or any other country do not look forward with pleasure to tax bills piling in upon them one after another and in one form and another. But it is necessary for us, as it is necessary for every country, that there shall be a tax of one kind or another in order that the public business may be conducted in a proper and dignified way and in accordance with the requirements of the country. Apart from the revenues coming in from customs and excise, the Minister of Finance in the various forms of direct taxation that he intends to adopt, has kept well in view, in so far as that could reasonably be accomplished, the placing of the greatest burden on the shoulders of those best able to bear it. His intention was* to relieve, as far as might be, those unable to pay very much in the way of taxation. He proposes, as a necessary means of raising revenue, an excise tax, a luxury tax, a business profits tax and an increase in the income tax. We have here surely a sufficient variety of taxation to meet all tastes, although it is quite possible that all will not be pleased; probably quite a number will not be pleased. There have been a number of people who have expressed dissatisfaction with the form of indirect taxation. They are paying taxes unknown to themselves, as it were, by means of customs duties and excise. They are not satisfied-or, at least some expressed dissatisfaction, and they have said that they would like to pay directly. They

will have their opportunity; we have here both, we have an admixture of direct and indirect taxation. It is quite possible that there are some people who will not be satisfied with either. However, that remains to be seen. The main thing is that these taxes shall be so adjusted and so arranged that they will, in so far as that can be done, bear least heavily on those who are least able to pay them, while those who have the wealth and are able to pay shall be asked to pay and pay well. Direct taxation is not altogether new to us; for two or three years, at least, we have had quite a considerable amount and this year it is invoked to an even greater extent. But generally speaking for years past *we have had indirect taxation, and therefore people are not so much accustomed to paying a direct tax. This year both kinds are brought into operation and when the tariff has been scientifically revised-after a thorough investigation into all the different phases of the question-we may look forward next year to witnessing the introduction of a tariff as nearly perfect as can be made and may as a result, confidently expect a great stimulus in our industrial and commercial life.
Figures are rather a dry subject and I am inclined to apologize for having dwelt so long on these phases of the question, but in considering a Budget Speech one cannot avoid quoting figures and in very great numbers. Having briefly and succinctly reviewed the administration of public affairs up to this point, having taken cognizance of our different resources and our trade and manufacturing and other activities, having dealt with the question of taxation and the position in which we now find ourselves in the present year, I shall refer briefly to some aspects of the fiscal question as presented by certain hon. gentlemen opposite. In particular, I wish to refer to the attitude taken by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). But before doing so let me say this: Like a great many of the members of this House I have a recollection of the hon. member, in common with a number of political associates, inveighing year after year against protection in any form whatever. Time after time they invoked the maledictions of high Heaven on the protective system. They declared that it was accursed of God and man and that at the very first opportunity it should be pulled up root and branch and totally destroyed-that such an accursed thing as protection should not be allowed to exist 182
in this country. These declarations were not made when the Liberals were in office; they were made when they were in opposition, and were made with special emphasis when elections were close at hand. We now have it from the hon. gentleman himself that in effect those declarations were only intended to win elections and not to be given effect to. In the face of repeated declarations by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, who was Minister of Finance during the fifteen years the Liberals were in office, it was most remarkable the other night to hear that hon. gentleman express his ideas respecting free trade and protection. Let me quote from his speech delivered on May 18 as reported at page 2581 of unrevised Hansard:
While it is true that at all times for many years all our tariff discussions have been more or less tinged with the question of free trade,-
Only "tinged," mind you. I am sure there are members of this House who were not then supporters of the Conservative party but supported the Liberals in the old days when, like the Liberals of the piesent, they were in opposition, who know how much "tinge" there was about my hon. friend's views. It was a good deal more than "tinge" I am sure. The hon. member goes on to say:
-there has of late been a revival of what 1 may call the free trade movement, and the free trade question is now thrust to the front of our tariff discussions in a larger way than it has been in recent years. That, 1 take it for granted, is because our farmer friends attach so much importance to the matter and have pushed it into their platform.
Ah, my hon. friend was then coquetting with the party sitting angularly opposite to me to-night-the Farmers' party. I see only one of them present this evening, and he is the chief Levite himself.
Mr. B/EID (Mackenzie): There is more than one of the Farmers' party present.


James McIsaac: I accept my hon. friend's correction. I did not notice him because he is not sitting in his usual seat, The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's went on to say:
With all due respect to them, I take the view that free trade is not a practical question in our tariff discussions of to-day.
This is very strange talk from one who might without exaggeration have been described as the high priest or chief apostle of free trade when he was in opposition prior to 1896-in fact, since then almost down to the present time. The hon. member continuing, said:



There are some things that we should do well to' remember. In the first plaice, it may be well simply to remember that there never has been in the Dominion of Canada such a thing as free trade.
Now, we have the truth. The hon. member here makes open confession that during all those years in which he and his associates preached free trade on every platform throughout the country they were simply deceiving the people. There is a word that has crept into our language lately that is applicable to the hon. gentleman's statements. I hesitate to use the expression because it is almost worked to death. The word in question is "camouflage," and I think the hon. member has given us a pretty good example of it. Proceeding, the hon. member said:
There is not anything of the kind now, and with all due respect to those who may be described as extreme free traders, I think it is no wild guess to assert that there will be no absolute free trade in Canada within the lifetime of any man who sits in this House to-day. It is not practicable, and that is not to say that free trade principles are not sound.
Free trade principles do not seem sound or practicable to the hon. member to-day? It is marvellous that he has become such a protectionist. He now advocates protection "whenever occasion requires it." He is quite prepared to grant protection in the form of bounties; to grant protection in the form of anti-dumping regulations; to give protection in half a dozen other ways-he is a thorough-going protectionist so to speak. Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that after this candid confession of the hon. member, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), who for over thirty years had heard my hon. friend denouncing protection, rubbed his eyes and expressed the greatest surprise.
He wondered whether or not the millennium had arrived. He felt that indeed he might well say, Nunc dimittis: Now dismiss thy servant in peace; because he had seen the conversion of my esteemed friend on the other side. But, Sir, while we may express surprise at this apparent conversion, when we sift the evidence there is nothing to be surprised at; he had always held that view.
To emphasize this point I cannot do better than quote from the speech of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat), at one time a prominent member of the Liberal party whose leaders when in opposition expressed themselves so strongly in favour of free trade principles. That hon. gentleman. does not now sit on the Opposition side the House, for being an honourable

man he felt that he could no longer belong to a party whose professions of free trade in opposition were not translated into practice when in office. But he refrained from telling tales out of school until he heard the ex-Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) express himself in the terms I have just quoted, when he spoke thus:
The political aspect of this question is interesting because it is so dramatic. The other night the ex-Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) stated his political creed on this matter, and I must say that to me it was surprising. For many years I was accustomed to follow that hon. gentleman, and to agree that what he did in the public interest was right; and during that time any changes in the tariff from the old national policy of our Conservative opponents did not seem to us to be very shocking. I was rather surprised at the confession that was made by my hon. friend. Perhaps because I was brought up in such a strict political school I thought it was very bad politics to admit anything which might be taken advantage of by one's opponents; but the confession having been made that the Liberal party of those days was really not a free trade party but a protectionist party, frees me from the secrecy that I would otherwise maintain, and permits me to say that I concur with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) who made this confession that the Liberals of those days did not, among themselves anyway, claim that they had materially reduced the protective policy of the country.
That is the confession of a gentleman who was -within the inner circles of the Liberal party-a confession that they were a free trade party only for the purpose of deceiW ing the people in order to get into power.
What is the fiscal policy under which we are operating now, and how does it differ from the National Policy of 1879? Did the Liberals when they came into power, notwithstanding their free trade professions and their convention resolution in 1893, take any steps to reduce the tariff when they brought down their Budget in 1897? It has been shown by those who were in the inner circles of the Liberal party-and the statement has not been denied-that .74 per cent was the greatest reduction made on the National Policy tariff brought down by Sir John Macdonald, and that for the last forty years we have retained that identical fiscal policy with little change except a slight reduction here and a slight advance there. Why, then, should our esteemed friend opposite make a loud profession of becoming somewhat of a protectionist? But all his colleagues ase not moderate protectionists. The hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) was in his seat a moment ago-


An hon. MEMBER:: I can get him.


James McIsaac: The genial member for Brome has a resounding voice, which is something to be thankful for-I wish I had such vocal equipment, then I would talk! But that hon. gentleman does not agree with the ex-Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), who after having expressed himself as a protectionist moved an amendment which was extremely vague, and which I think was aptly described by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark), who, although he said he would vote for it, inveighed against it, in these words. I will quote his words:
I should have hoped it would have contained more milk and less water under those circumstances. and would have been less of a shillyshally temporizing- and opportunist piece of print.
I think that describes the amendment in its true colours.
I would like to refer very briefly to the views expressed by my esteemed' friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster). He proclaimed himself a Simon pure free trader, and in order to emphasize the difference between himself and the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), speaking probably in a figurative sense, said that he did not believe in purgatory.


An hon. MEMBER:: What?


James McIsaac: His words will be found in Hansard, "I do not believe in purgatory." Whether we consider that in a theological or in a fiscal sense, there is always this to be said to the hon. gentleman: You might go farther and fare worse.


Mr. DUFF:: In which direction?


James McIsaac: Now, Mr. Speaker, all will remember the declarations that were made here a year ago by the hon. gentleman when he moved an amendment to the Budget. Of course, this year he was deprived of that honour, another hon. gentleman having been installed as Chief Financial Critic for the Opposition. But all will remember when the hon. member, in a certain upper chamber, was discharging the duties of what I am disposed to describe as controller of the wardrobe when he was clothing a certain western settler, handing out to him one garment after another. I was struck at that time with the peculiar manner in which he proceeded to clothe that man; he got his boots on before his nether garments and the man had to go out in order to attend his stock, clothed in a way that would shock one's modesty, without his trousers on. That was a deplorable condition of things. But that 182J
is on a par with the argument that the hon. member fop Brome (Mr. McMaster), brings to bear on this question when he discusses it in the House. I shall not say anything more in that regard; but if the hon. member had been in his seat, I would be disposed to have a little badinage with him.
I do not observe in his seat for the moment my esteemed friend the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie). The presentation of the financial position of the country is a question which I am sure most hon. members with few exceptions, perhaps with the sole exception of himself, indeed all men of common sense generally must necessarily regard as a most important, difficult and intricate question. But when my hon. friend was speaking on the Budget, he brushed it aside with a wave of the hand, saying: This is only a school-boy performance; any school boy could get up such figures as the Minister of Finance has presented to us today; it is not a difficult operation at all. Talking about schoolboys, I heard my hon. friend's speech and I read it afterwards and I am fully convinced that his was the speech of a schoolboy. He began to manipulate figures; he jumbled up the ordinary and the capital expenditures for the pa6t year; then he took the ordinary revenue and subtracted something from it, added something else to it and, do you know, 'Sir, he produced a result showing a deficit for the year of $498,000,000. 'Thei Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) had shown plainly, as I have already stated, that on the year's transaction there was a surplus of $39,000,000, but- of course a schoolboy can make figures show anything. Last session, I heard the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) describe certain figures presented to this House by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria) as arithmetical monstrosities and I think when he was discussing the Budget, the hon. gentleman (Mr. McKenzie), indulged in similar arithmetical monstrosities, as I have shown. I heard the hon. member say in this House that he had at one time been a school teacher, and he added that he was a good school teacher. I do not believe there is in Canada another person than himself who will say that he was a good school teacher. What would be the effect of the teaching of an hon. gentleman who will so juggle with figures in this House that they must be *described as arithmetical monstrosities, on the youth of the country when the young nnind is plastic and susceptible of impres-

sions? What would be the effect of such wrong and misleading impressions made on them? All the rest of their lives they would be handicapped, and they would never be able to get over those wrong impressions, it ialso appears, that the hon. member has been a member of the bar, for he has told us that he has practised at the bar and it is said that he has occupied a judicial position. 'That makes the matter much worse. What would be the fate of some unfortunate litigant who had lost his case before such a judge as this who is capable otf making such monstrous arithmetical calculations, and this judge had to tax his costs? Why, he would be just as likely to say that the costs were $4, or $40, or $400; as long as there was a four in the total, he would be just as likely to put down one set of figures as another.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James McIsaac: I am glad that my esteemed and hon. friends opposite are enjoying this so well.
After these digressions, let us return to a consideration oif the tariff. The Minister of Finance has told us-and we feel sure he will fulfil his promise-that there will be a thorough and scientific investigation of the tarifi and that it will be revised in all its phases and establishments on a firm basis when all the inconsistencies, if any are revealed, and rubbish and underbrush are swept away, and we feel sure that a proper and scientific revision will he presented to us if we are spared to be here at the next Parliament.	,


Mr. W. H. WHITE:: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James McIsaac: I am glad that this programme meets with the approval of hon. gentlemen opposite as well as of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. It is really encouraging for a comparatively new .member like myself to receive commendation from both sides of the House. I am pleased beyond power of expression. Now what will be the essential features of this revised tariff? It will be founded on the bedrock of the national policy introduced by tSiir John A. Macdonald, under which Ithis country during the last forty years has made wonderful progress, stabilized its institutions, progressed marvellously in 'trade 'and developed her natural resources. It has contributed in bringing Canada ito the proud position she occupies in the galaxy of nations of the Britannic Commonwealth. Had we a spark of patriotism-and I use that word only in its best sense. I 'interpret patriotism to mean a wfll-ingness to exert all our energies towards Itfhe advancement of our country, and to be prepared in peace -as in war to make reasonable sacrifices in order that our country may prosper and grow great. It we will only put our shoulder to the wheel in earnest 'and manfully persevere, I am confident that Canada will at no distant day reach a still higher plane among the nations of the world.


Mr. EDMOND SAVARD (Chicoutimi and Saguenay) (Translation):: Mr. -Speaker, I do not expect to contribute anything new to the debate which has occupied the House for this last ten days, but realizing that I have the privilege of representing one of the most prosperous counties and one which from every standpoint offers the most brilliant prospects for the future, I think that I may be allowed to exercise the right that

belongs to me in common with every member of this House, to state my views concerning the government still known as Union Government, when it strikes all except those who are blind or interested, that there never was a government more divided and at variance than the one that.is carrying on the business of the country at the present moment.
Union may no doubt have existed at the outset, when it was necessary that every sacrifice should be made in behalf of the Empire, but, Mr. Speaker, it is no more so since the war is over. If wre consider the changes effected in the different departments, the resignation of a certain number of ministers, the protracted absence of the leader of the iGovernment, who was reported to be very sick but whom we were glad to see again apparently in good health, and if we consider also that the heads of certain departments hold no seat in this House even, how can we come to another conclusion than that which I have just expressed?
Whatever may be said or done, we all know what circumstances the Union Government was born. After a few years of a nefarious administration, nay, the most nefarious in our history, with the exception of the present one, numerous scandals were brought to light, popular indignation was at its height and the day of defeat was ce.tain, when war was declared in Europe and in that great turmoil, the mistakes of the Government were unfortunately forgotten and nobody thought of anything but the war.
The Government was not the wiser for all that; the whirligig of scandals continued on a larger scale, peculation was supreme and more especially at that time did vampires of all size appear in such great numbers. We recollect the contracts granted to the friends of the administration; we particularly recollect the boots with paper soles, the perforated shovels (an invention of a well advised lady stenographer); we recollect the purchase of sick or lame horses, to quote a few instances. It was a real orgy which the iGovernment concluded by the Canadian Northern scandal when the country paid millions for a bankrupt railroad of [DOT]which it was the only creditor.
But. there is a limit to everything, and the time had arrived when an appeal to the people was necessary. Parliament had lasted too long already and, in my humble opinion, the Liberal party never should have assented to its being prolonged. Therefore, it was necessary that- elections should take place.
I say again, Mr. Speaker, that the people was exasperated, and realizing its unpopularity, the Government could, by no means, ask for a renewal of its mandate with the least chance of success. At that time, in spite of the most solemn promises made from his seat in the House, before all the representatives of the people, the Prime Minister submitted the question of conscription which divided the Liberal party, stirred up the English provinces against the province of Quebec, succeeded, after a most laborious gestation, in giving birth to the Union cabinet, and thanks to the War Time Election Act, which will remain as a monument of despotism and knavery, he retained power.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take up the time of the House dealing with the details of the policy which this famous Union Government has followed ever since it was born, I shall only summarize the result of that policy.
In fact, this Government, composed of Conservatives and of Liberals, as many imperialists whose fixed desire w7as to sacrifice everything to the empire were it the last man or the last dollar-what aberration ! Mr. Speaker-has superabundantly proven that the interest of the country was the only thing for which it had no regard.
Sixty-thousand of our young men practically the pick of Canada's boys-are now sleeping their last sleep in a foreign land, and the amount of the country's debt is ten times higher than it was at the beginning of the war.
That is w'hat will characterize the reign of this Government, in the opinion of the future generations, and in our own, as well.
Now, like all those who have preceded me, I have to congratulate the honourable Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) upon the hard work he has accomplished by stating in black and white wdrat is our position from an economic standpoint; but, surely, I cannot approve all the means he has resorted to in order to fill up the abyss dug out by the Government's bad administration. As was stated by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) in his masterly speech on the budget, the hon. Minister of Finance is not responsible for the colossal or pyiamidal debt of the country, and I think that when the hon. member said he was not, he certainly voiced the public opinion. However, as the hon. minister has shown remarkable talent, exceptional judgment, I think he should have taken into consideration the idea expressed

As you may be aware, Saguenay county is formed of six large parishes besides the northern shore, from Bersimis to Natashquan. At the present moment, this population is deprived of communications, as I have informed you by a telegram dated Saturday last, the 5th instant, the Canada Steamship Company having discontinued its service.
I connot believe, hon. sir, that you would refuse helping this population and I venture to expect that I shall receive a reply to the present as soon as possible.
I have the honour to be Yours humbly,
Edm. Savard, M.P.
Now here is one of the petitions which were addressed to the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. I shall not read the four of them, all of them having been written in about the same style:
Tadoussac, September 3, 1918.
To the Right Hon. Sir Geo. Foster,
P.C., K.C., B.A., LLi.D., D.C.L.,
Minister of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa.
The undersigned do hereby humbly state:
That for several years past subsidies were granted by your department for the carrying of mail along Saguenay river, between St. Catherine and Tadoussac during the winter season (November 1 to May 1), with the further object of assisting the transportation and the revictualling of the northern shore.
That it is rumoured that that subsidy has been out off for the year 1918-19.
That such a measure is liable to be greatly detrimental to the population of the North shore, so isolated during the winter months.
That the subsidy of the last year is no longer adequate to maintain this crossing, on account of the increased cost of materials, fuel and labour.
The petitioners do humbly pray the hon. minister to grant the required subsidy for maintaining that crossing, i.e. $5,000.
Moreover, weather permitting after the closing of navigation in the. fall and before its reopening in the spring, the undersigned beg the hon. minister to grant an adequate supply (to permit crossing ithe St. Lawrence from Rivi&re du Loup to Tadoussac, i.e. $100 per trip, once a week.
And the petitioners will keep on praying you.
Municipality of the village of Tadoussac.
J. Bergeron, priest.
The petitions which were addressed to the hon. minister bore the signature off the parish priest, of the mayor and of all the citizens of these municipalities.
A little later, I sent a message to the same department to the effect that it was urgent to come to the assistance of the people of Saguenay and I must admit that the department considered my request, as can be seen by the telegrams which I shall read presently. But, before doing so, I wish to read the following letter:

Department of Trade and Commerce,
Ottawa, October 7th, 1918.
Dear Sir:-The minister has received a telegram from Dr. Savard, M.P., stating that the population of Saguenay are absolutely without communication. They cannot transport their products, animals, etc., and conditions there are excessively alarming.
I should think that if the trade warranted it that probably you could make some calls, unless it be up the Saguenay river. I am not yet fully advised by Dr. Savard as to the ports of call. He telegraphs from Chicoutimi East. I have wired him, however, as to what ports he desires communication, though probably you might look into the matter in the meantime.
Yours truly,
F. C. T. O'Hara, Deputy Minister.
The Gulf of St. Lawrence Shipping & Trading Co..
147 Mountain Hill, Quebec, Que.
A similar letter was addressed to Mr. Gibson, president- of that company.
A few days later, I came to Ottawa and I met the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce with whom I discussed the necessity of granting the required subsidy. Now, here is the telegram which I received from Mr. D'Auteuil, who was then the Conservative member in the Quebec Legislature:
Dr. E. Savard, M.P.,
Russell Hotel, Ottawa.
I admit services of a ferry-boat between Tadoussac and St. Catherine Bay in winter of prime necessity for Saguenay population ten thousand souls contributing to common wealth be developing forests, fisheries and other national industries. That population spend winter in dangerous isolation. Government should insure security. I would absolutely approve the granting of a Dominion subsidy for such a purpose.
P. D'Auteuil.
Realizing how urgent it was for that population to obtain the necessary relief, I employed every possible means.
I sought and obtained the support of the very lamented Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who handed me the following letter to be transmitted to Mr. O'Hara, Deputy Minister o<f Commerce:
335 Laurier Avenue East, Ottawa, Nov. 14th, 1918.
My Dear O'Hara: Dr. Savard, M.P. for Chicoutimi and Saguenay, informs me that he is here to obtain the continuation of a subsidy for a ferry crossing of the Saguenay river between St. Catherine's Bay and Tadoussac.
This subsidy was granted by the late Government some twelve years ago, and perhaps more. I understand that it is now proposed to drop it. This certainly would be most unfortunate. I am well acquainted with the locality, and the reason which I pressed upon Sir Richard, who w*as then Minister of Trade and Commerce, was that in winter the people on both

sides of the Saguenay are absolutely shut off from civilization. This is particularly hard upon the people of Tadoussac, which is a place of some considerable importance. In winter they are without any kind of steam communication, either by rail or vessel, except by this ferry.
I do not know who is your minister in the absence of Sir George Foster. I would ask you to place these facts before him.
Tours sincerely,
Wilfrid Laurier.
F. C. T. O'Hara. Esq. *
The hon. Minister of Commerce answered that he had dropped that subsidy as a (matter of economy in the first place, and besides (because ft was for a ferry service ^vhi'ch should (be subsidized by the Quebec Government; and, he told me the Quebec Government whose financial position was so extraordinarily good, should help this (popullation to obtain what they need. He advised me1 to see the Prime Minister of the province of Quebec on the subject, and to report later. I met Sir Lomer Gouin. He did not share the opinion of the right hon. *Minister of Commerce to the effect that this ferry service should he subsidized by his Government. Sir Lomer Gouin added that he would go to Ottawa and would talk the matter over with the Minister of Commerce. Sir Lomer Gouin did leome to Ottawa, bu't the right hon. Minister of Commerce had left for Europe the day before. Sir Lotmer Gouin thought proper to write to the Minister ad interim the following letter:
Office of the Prime Minister,
Province of Quebec,
Quebec, Nov. 26th, 1918.
The Hon. A. K. Maclean, K.C.,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Maclean :-
I understand that you have now charge of Sir George Foster's Department. Mr. Savard, the member for Chicoutimi, wrote you on the subject of a ferry between St. Catharine's Bay and Tadousac, for which you have till now granted a subsidy. Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Hon. Ro-dolphe Lemieux are also interested in the matter. This ferry is absolutely necessary to the inhabitants of the North Shore, and would impress upon you the great necessity to continue the subsidy granted in the past.
Yours very truly,
Lomer Gouin.
I have an acknowledgment of this letter from the Deputy Minister of Commerce. Notwithstanding all our work, we have not succeeded in obtaining from the Government the aid which we were seeking, and the people of the Saguenay were deprived of communication, were isolated from the rest of the country for a whole winter long
in 1917-18. And yet, Mr. (Speaker, in that part, of the country, in..each of the parishes (which I have named and which sent petitions to the hon. Minister of Commerce, young men 'have sacrificed their lives for the cause of civilization and justice. Last year,.thanks to the active co-operation of the excellent member for Charlevoix (Mr. Cas-grain), it was decided to put the steamer .Champlain on this service for three trips a week. This boat plied 'between Murray Bay and Tadoussac for a few weeks only. I can pot say for what reasons the service was discontinued, -but I 'have been told that there was ill will on the part o-f the crew. And to a. question which I put to the Government at the beginning of this session, asking if measures would be taken to restore the interrupted service, I was given a negative answer. The population of this .part of the country were again during the .balance of the winter, practically deprived of all communication with the rest of the country. Last fall, while it had been decided that the Champlain would make1 three trips a week to Tadoussac, the inhabitants of the county of 'Saguenay thought that such a service would, not he sufficient for their needs; steps (were taken to obtain from the Post Office 'Department, a small subsidy which would allow of a motor boat plying every day between Ste. Catherine and Tadoussac.
We bad received a favourable answer from the Postmaster General; the matter had almost- been decided upon, when Mr. Girard, the former member, who had been *so greatly befriended by the inhabitants of that county, stepped in, and I would not mention it, had he not. interfered to the detriment of my constituents, for in my opinion, Mr. Girard is as dead as a door nail, as he was snowed under at the last elections, by an overwhelming majority of over 10,000 votes, and crushed, under public contempt; but he nevertheless occasion-aUy comes down to Ottawa,, and what for I. am at a lass to know. He still has some pull apparently and enjoys some patronage, as I am going to try to -show, successfully, I think. On the 7th April, I moved in this House for a copy of all correspondence, letters and telegrams in connection with the granting of an allowance by the Post Office Department for a regular ferry service by motor yacht between Ste. Catherine and Tadoussac;
That motion was made early in April; we are at the end -of May and I regret to say that those papers have not yet been brought down, so that I cannot produce the original,

their sons to the woods rather than having them with me to do their duty; and in this whole story I can see but the meanest partisan spirit, because my father and all his family are friends of the present Government.
I do not know the names of the parties who sighed the document mentioned in Mr. Green's letter, hut, without seeing them, I might wager that all the out-and-out Liberals of the parish and, probably, of other parts, who would like to see the Government thrown down, are against me and want to prevent my appointment, because I am a friend of the Government and, especially so, because I enlisted in spite of themselves.
The site I suggested for the post office is more centrally located than the present one, as can be seen by the sketch here inclosed, and outside of a handful of the village folks, the rest of the inhabitants will be closer to my office than to the present one; and I inclose a statement from three of the principal mail car. riers interested in the Metabetchouan service who declare that, as far as distances are concerned, it would not make any difference to them to come to my place instead of going to the present office, but that, considering access facilities to the office, they prefer the site I have chosen.
I might further inform you that, when I left for the war, I was only following the generous example of my sister, Mary Perron, who served as a nurse, in England and in France, for more than four years, from January, 1915, to April, 1918, and those who have contended that I did not go to the front have also taken-care not to mention my sister's name.
Under such circumstances, belonging to an honourable family, proud of the military service which I have honourably discharged, honourable myself previously, honourable during that service and honourable since, qualified from every point of view, unless my standing as a friend of the Government and of a retrun-ed soldier should disqualify me, I believe I may claim my appointment as postmaster of Metabetchouan, as a matter of justice towards merit, if. as it is generally said, the soldiers have above all and in the first place a right to public employment.
I have the honour to be
Your humble petitioner,
Georges Emile Perron.
I meant to have this letter inserted in 'full in Hansard, in order that his fellow citizens might see the extraordinary impudence of this young man, who claims to be honourable, after having forged the signature of his parish priest upon a petition applying for the position of postmaster, after it has been stated, in the course of an investigation, that he had forged and signed his own father's name. Is a forger an honourable man? He may have done some military service, but his life has never been in danger. The other candidate, Mr. Plourde, was backed by petitions signed by several hundred citizens, representing four-fifths of that parish's population, all the principal citizens included; he has been assistant postmaster for several years. Had he not

been more qualified than Georges Emile Perron-a forger-I might understand that the latter, having performed some military service, though he never went to the front nor did he expose his own life, should have been preferred to the other, the aptitudes being even. Upon that point, I have asked, at this session, whether a soldier who had served at St. Lucia could be considered as a returned soldier from the front; I moreover asked whether the Civil Service Commission should be giving their preference to those young men. I was given the following answer:
1.	A soldier who served with the Canadian Expeditionary Force in Bermuda is considered a "returned soldier". He holds the same position in that respect as a soldier who only saw service in England; and is entitled to a Class "C" Badge.
2.	Where two candidates are considered to be at all points on a parity, if one is a civilian and the other has voluntarily enlisted and been drafted to Bermuda, the latter would be given the preference.
Being at all points on a parity, a soldier should toe given the preference, but, in this case, the qualifications are absolutely inadequate. At the Civil Service Commission, I was informed that one had 100 points and the other 65; such is the difference between the two candidates as to efficiency, and that is why Mr. Plourde was appointed in the first place. It was then that Mr. Joseph Girard, ex-member, sent a telegram to the Postmaster General:
Re postmaster of Metabetchouan, suspend all, am sending important record by mail.
The important record is the one relative to George Emile Perron; and, after that, Plourde's appointment. was set aside and George Emile Perron was appointed.
I really believe, Mr. Speaker, that it .would be bard to find a case of more glaring injustice 'and a. more convincing evidence of the fact that favouritism still exists as to appointments. I believe this case must be most uncommon, for here, the appointment was made toy the Civil Service Commission. And I have in my -hands the direct evidence that the appointment was made toy t'he Civil Service Commission. (Reading):
Civil Service Commission, -Canada.
. Ottawa, December 17, 1919.
Dear Sir,-Referring to your requisition of the 22nd September, asking for the appointment of a Postmaster at Metabetchouan, P.Q., I am directed by the Commissioners to advise you that they have selected Mr. J. A. Plourde for this position.
The certificate for Mr. Plourde's permanent appointment will be issued as soon as the required information has heen received in this

office, and in this connection Mr. Plourde is being communicated with direct.
Yours very truly Wm. Foran,
Secretary.
Hector B. Verret, Esq.,
Ass's Deputy Postmaster General.
Ottawa.
I cannot understand and I ibelieve it would Ibe impossible Ifor any one to explain how a unan 'such as the late member 'for Chicoutimi, who has betrayed every political iparty, iwho, as il have stated a few moments ago, has been crushed by popular contempt in his own riding, could still have a certain influence in the department in Ottawa, and I mean to protest as strongly as I can against this injustice towards Mr. Plourde, who had made certain sacrifices and fully deserved his appointment as postmaster in that important parish.
Now, Mr. -Speaker, I most sincerely admit my full repentance in having been so lengthly in any remarks, tout I really feel that I have 'accomplished my duty and I will conclude by stating that the programme adopted by last August's Liberal Convention suite me -absolutely. I believe that that Convention could not have been 'better organized: The premiers of every province in the Dominion, Ontario excepted, took part in it. the Liberal party's programme was gone through and discussed for several days, and, for my part, I am absolutely satisfied with the conclusions of that Convention's programme; that is the reason why I shall heartily vote in favour of the amendment of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding's) which is based upon the principles adopted by that Convention.


Mr. O. D. CASSELMAN (Dundas):: It is with a great deal of hesitation and diffidence that I rise to take part in this debate, which hon. members on both sides of the House will agree has already been protracted to too great a length. But representing a county in Eastern Ontario, a part of Canada which, east of Frontenac at least, is not often heard from in this House, I feel it. my duty, much as I dislike to discharge that duty, to place on Hansard what I conceive to be the views of my constituents in regard to matters affected by the Budget. I do not often intrude my views on the attention of the House, and I think that the House will absolve me of the charge of wasting its time to any great extent. I do make it a point, however, to sit in my seat fairly regularly throughout the session, and it has been a constant source of wonder to
me to see the ingenuity and the ability displayed by hon. members in dressing up the same facts in so many different suits of verbal clothing. I have observed that the principal facts in every discussion are usually brought out early in the debate. I have admired the patience both of the House and of yourself, Mr. Speaker, and I have sympathized with the impatience of the people of the country in witnessing the flagrant waste of money, time and energy- the money of the people, the time of the House, and the energy of members. I say, I have sympathized with the impatience of the people in submitting to this waste by a constant repetition of the same facts. I cannot, Sir, see the wisdom of it. I cannot see how the interests of the country are promoted by it, nor can I see what benefit accrues to the political careers of hon. members in consequence. The country resents it. The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) yesterday objected to hurrying the -proceedings' of the House, but Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why this House should not already have been adjourned; and instead of spending our time here talking about the cost of living we might with infinitely better advantage be engaged at home actually helping to reduce the high cost of living by working in the fields.
We on this side of the House have been amused and sometimes, I admit, we have been slightly irritated by the taunts that come fro-m the Opposition because the Government does not dissolve the House and appeal to the country in a general election. What good purpose would be served by such a course? What hope is there, based on any reasonable foundation, that as good a Government or a better one would follow? I do not know the minds of the cabinet ministers, they do not confide their private opinions to me; but I will venture to say that they hold the same broad general view with regard to the question of . continuing in power as hon. members back of them hold. We private members are not over-burdened by affairs of state. We have some time on our hands to gossip, to exchange views, and to learn one another s opinions on matters generally, and I am convinced that the majority of hon. members on this side, like myself, would welcome a return to private life. From observation and conversation with members I am convinced that the majority of hon. gentlemen on this side would welcome the relief which a general election at this time might possibly give them. Why then do we support the Government in their

decision to continue in power to the end of the parliamentary term? Sir, the party on this side of the House is peculiarly formed. A large number of the members on this side are not politicians; they have never been politicians and they do not want to become politicians. They accepted nomination and contested their elections because they were convinced that Canada needed a strong, non-partisan, non-political party to carry it safely through the conditions of the war. Are the conditions which have resulted from the war less difficult to-day than the conditions that existed when hon. members were elected? Can we not all see the dark cloud gathering, growing darker, the socialistic and Bolshevistic danger that threatens to disrupt civilization, to destroy the commercial life of the world, to set up mo>b rule and to overthrow the supremacy of law and order? And yet members of the Opposition, sworn to do their duty by the State, because they imagine that the Government is unpopular would plunge the country into the throes of a general election with a result that could be nothing but disorder and chaos. It may be that the Union Government is not altogether perfect; it may be that there is some one in Canada who does not so consider it. But is there any student of public affairs who is uninfluenced by political considerations, who is unbiased in politics, who will suggest where, at the present time, there is a prospect of obtaining a better, or will suggest how that prospect can be developed into a reality? If there was any prospect or hope that a general election would result in bringing into power a Government strong enough, conservative enough in principle, to carry on as the governments of Canada, of both shades of political opinion, have carried on, I am convinced, 'Sir, that the members of the Cabinet, and the members who are supporting this Government would -welcome the relief that a general election, perhaps, would give them. But the burden that the war has laid upon the shoulders of the Government is a burden that they must still carry and which to lay down now, in view of the conditions that obtain in this country, would be an act of cowardice, a quitting in the face of trouble, which time and the good sense of our Canadian people will overcome-an act which this Government, which has so safely and capably carried us through the period of war, would not be guilty of.
The Opposition gets a good deal of pleasure from repeating, one after another, the statement made by one of its number, that

this Government is unpopular and that if there were a general election it would be hopelessly defeated. Perhaps it would, but why is the Government alleged to be unpopular? Canada never had a better or stronger Government than the Union Government; it never had a Government which has been tried like this one. Canada, like every other country in the world, strained with the labours of the war, has suffered less than any one of them from the aftermath of trouble which always follow war. There has not been the slightest breath of slander or charge of graft made against the Union Government. Law and order reign supreme, there are no civil disorders. This Government has conducted the war; it has built up a great Canadian army; it has brought glory to Canada; it has brought the soldiers back from the war, demobilized them and re-established them in civil life with a minimum of trouble and of difficulty. Why then is the Union Government said to be unpopular?
Paradoxical as it may appear, any unpopularity which may have come to the Union Government has come to it because it has kept its pre-election promises. The Government promised to abolish patronage. From all over the country came the clamour that the patronage system was an evil. Undoubtedly evils did exist, as undoubtedly they exist under the present system. It would almost appear that the people resent the action of a Government which attempted to fulfil its promises. The people of the province of Ontario demanded by an overwhelming majority that the Government legislate in the strongest way to prohibit the liquor traffic. The Hearst Government gave them such legislation and immediately the people turned them out of power and put another in its place a Government which has not the courage to assume the responsibility for legislation necessary to make the Canada Temperance Act effective.. The people of Canada demanded the abolition of the patronage system. The Union Government abolished that system and they have got themselves into a peck of trouble by so doing. But the Government has had the courage to attempt to place the Civil Service upon a business basis. Perhaps what it has done is a long step in that direction but it still has a long way to go before it can be said that it has been fully successful. What it has done is to take the patronage out of the hands of members who are responsible to the people, who have to answer to the people, whose public careers depend

upon the efficiency with which the public service is carried on, and to place it in the hands of a small commission who are responsible to no one, who hold their positions practically for life and who are independent to all intents and purposes of the ministers in charge of the departments. The war record of the Government is a splendid one, the people admit it; posterity will acclaim it. The wisdom of the reconstruction work of the Government appeals to the people and as time goes on, as that work develops and as its results can be better seen, the people of Canada will appreciate it more and more. I wish I could say that the Government has been equally successful in its efforts to place the Civil Service of this country on a sound business basis. The people are not satisfied with the present system. The civil servants themselves are not satisfied with the present system; they are discontented, they are holding up the Government at every opportunity. It is said that the departments are woefully overmanned, and that for every vacancy there are dozens of applications. If this be the ease, why not let the dissatisfied ones go? Why not replace them by others who are applying for the positions? They will suffer no hardships, there is plenty of work in Canada outside the Civil Service. Let the men go and work on the farms Let the women go and do other work; there is plenty of work for all to do.
There is one branch of the Civil Service, however, that is notoriously underpaid-I refer to the mail couriers. When we apply for consideration for them we are told that they are under contract-that they tendered for the service, and that they contracted to do the work on the salaries that are paid to them. Very true, but the other civil servants are practically also under contract; at least they knew the work they had to do and the salaries they were to get before they accepted their appointments. Why not make them fulfil their obligations just as the Post Office .Department makes the mail couriers fulfil their contract? Mr. Speaker, if this Union Governjment can crown its work by placing the Civil Service of the country on a sound business basis they will earn the gratitude of the people of Canada, and there will not be the same necessity of multiplying the methods of taxation year after year.
It is also said that the Union Government is unpopular among the farmers. I would advise the members of the Opposition, and the members of the Agrarian party, not to base their hopes upon! this statement. The
great mass of the farmers-who think much and say little-are sound at heart, and are not to be led away by the visionary programme outlined by the new Agrarian/party. There is a certain amount of dissatisfaction among the farmers, I admit. Why? Because conscription, one of the promises of the Union Government, was made broad enough, when the urgency of the war required, to include even; those engaged in essential work of production. The LTnited Farmers party of Ontario, ae a political body, was born on the day when our gallant friend from North Ontario (Mr. Halbert) led his band of discontented ones down to Ottawa protesting against the Order in Council cancelling the exemption granted to the sons of farmers. Like a famous warrior of old lie led his. army up the hill and led it down again. Previous to tthat day there was no farmers' organization for political purposes in the province of Ontario; it was born on that day and delivered out of that occasion. It has been nurtured and fed by the Liberals in the hope that they might climb to power because of this movement and because of this discontent; but the Liberals in Ontario havfe found, and the Liberals of the Dominion too will find, that they have created a Frankenstein which they cannot control. It does not appear at all, Mr. Speaker, to the disinterested observer that this Government, or the governments of the past, have been neglectful of the interests of the. farmer. On the contrary it would appear that they have been extremely solicitous that injury should not come to that industry. We cannot afford to have that industry injured. It has been built up at so much cost, so much expense and so much labour, and we-in Eastern Canada, at least -are so proud of its growth and the dimensions which it has reached, that we look with suspicion and distrust on any move-menft, or any action, that has even the appearance of disturbing it. I am one of those who believe that Canada's surest and safest road to greatness is through the development and promotion of the agricultural industry, that we have travelled far along that road and in that direction. Therefore, I would denounce with vigour anything that had even the appearance of disturbing that industry. Through the intelligence and efforts of our farmers, and the educational, experimental and demonstration work of this Government and the governments of the past, that industry has been raised from .the plane of an occupation to the plane of a profession.

The .best asset that Canada can have is a prosperous, contented and intelligent agrarian community. But it cannot have that unless the industrial life of the country keeps pace with tlie agricultural]! life, unless the growth of industry keeps pace with the growth of agriculture. The two must go together, must advance together, must proceed hand in hand; the life, the success and the prosperity of the one depend upon the other. It is therefore with extreme regret and apprehension that I view the efforts of irresponsible agitators to instil in the minds of our farmers the idea that Canada can rise to greatness on steps made out of the debris of other industries. I have noticed that lawyers who become politicians lose their clients; that doctors who become politicians lose their patients; and that merchants-as I know from personal experience-who attempt to become politicians lose their customers. That econ-*omic law must extend to the farmers as well, and those of them who become politicians, will eventually lose their farms.
I view with alarm, then, this new movement which seeks to build up one industry by tearing down others. The members of the Farmers' party disclaim any desire for class legislation, but they are so insistent in their disclaimer that we become suspicious of its sincerity, especially when they are so peculiarly solicitous of their own interests and so callously indifferent to the interests of others. I have under my hand their political creed as set out in this pamphlet, a copy of which, I believe, was mailed to every hon. member. The Farmers' party seem to be very proud of this document, but I do not know why, for as a literary effort it is a beautiful piece of plagiarism. As a platform it contains very little that is new, and what is new is vague, visionary, impracticable.
As tlie first plank in their platform they call for the formation of a League of Nations. Do they not know that that is already an accomplished fact? Do they not know that the members of this Government took a [DOT]prominent and an active part in promoting that League? Every member of that party who has spoken has advised the formation of a League of Nations, and yet not one oi them has commended this Government for the active part it took in the promotion and formation of the League that is now functioning. The second plank in this platform reads as follows:
We believe that the further development of the British Empire should he sought along the
[Mr. Casselman-l
lines of partnership between nations free and equal, under the present governmental system of British constitutional authority. We are [DOT] strongly opposed to any attempt to centralize imperial control. Any attempt to set up an independent authority with power to bind the Dominions, whether this authority be termed parliament, council or cabinet would hamper the growth of responsible and informed democracy in the Dominion.
What do they mean. Sir, by that? From what old speeches, books, or pamphlets have they culled those beautiful sentiments? My recollection is, Sir, that I have been listening to similar sentiments for the last thirty or forty years. Where is the danger of "centralized imperial control"? Where is any effort being made "to set up an independent authority with power to bind the Dominions"? Why should this new Progressive party set up a very beautifully clothed figure of straw simply for the pleasure o-f knocking it down again?
The third item in this platform-this wonderful platform-is the tariff. Recriminations are useless, Mr. Speaker,
11	p.m. and I do not intend to indulge in them, but I cannot resist the temptation of saying that every hon. member who sits in the seats allotted to this new party was a strong and ardent supporter of the tariff policy of the Liberal Government which held power between 18% and 1911-a, tariff higher than the present tariff which they are condemning and which they say they intend to vote against.
What'is their policy? They are demanding under clause (a):
An immediate and substantial all-round reduction of the customs tariff.
That is vague to say the least. Why cannot they come out boldly and say definitely what their policy is? "A substantial and allround reduction of the customs tariff." Do they mean by that that they want free trade? Or do they not? Let me tell them that in the country their lieutenants and henchmen are not talking about "a substantial allround reduction of the customs tariff;" they are talking of absolute free trade, of nothing but free trade.


John Flaws Reid: No, Sir.


Orren D. Casselman: They did in my county.


An hon. MEMBER :: No.


Orren D. Casselman: The Minister of Agriculture in the new Provincial Government of Ontario in his first speech in the Legislature spurned with scorn, it is true, the * accusation that the Farmers' party should be called free traders, and yet in the election

campaign which returned him and his party to power all tariffs were roundly condemned. The "iniquitous tariff" was the theme of every U.F.O. speech. The farmers were being oppressed by the tariff, it was said. "Give us free trade," demanded the members of the Farmers' party, "and a new era of prosperity will dawn on Canada." I know that not many hon. members profess free trade in this House, but I am in a position to state that at their meetings in the country school houses and at their clubs the lieutenants of the Farmers' party are not talking about a substantial reduction in the tariff, they are demanding absolute free trade; that is what they are preach-trade; that is what they are preaching to the farmers of Canada. In the country they talk free trade; in the House they talk any old thing. Why play fast and loose with this important matter? Why have one policy in the country and another policy in Parliament? This much can be said for the much-abused Union Government, that it has and. always has had a definite tariff policy; that the Government believed in that policy; that it has the unanimous support of the members back of it, and that those members preach that policy in the House and out of it. The new Minister of Agriculture of Ontario, the leader of the Opposition and the leader of the new Agrarian party have too much intelligence not to know that free trade would ruin Canada's prosperity; that it would be a disaster and a calamity for Canada, a disaster which they have no intention of precipitating. So, while they try to cater to whatever free trade ideas, whatever discontent with the tariff, may exist in Canada in the hope of benefiting politically thereby, they are careful, when they come into positions of responsibility, to guard their utterances so that they shall not find themselves committed to practical foolishness. Our free trade friends on the other side of the House suggest wiping out our chief source of revenue, but they have not made a single suggestion as to what we should and must do to raise a revenue. We should all like to see such an ideal, Utopian condition af world affairs develop as to make free trade possible, so that there could, to the advantage and safety of all, be a free interchange of all commodities. But the world is not yet a Utopia; much water must pass over the wheels before it becomes such. We must have a revenue and a large one; will the Opposition suggest where, with free trade, that revenue will be found? Un-183
til they do that, it is most futile and foolish to speak of abolishing the customs duties. But we get from them not a single adequate, practical suggestion how that revenue, lost by free trade or by an allround modification of the tariff, is to be secured. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) very candidly and honestly admitted in his speech the other night- that free trade was designed only to get into power by; that it was not practical; that it was simply a trap to catch votes. I admired his courage and honesty, while I could not admire his consistency. '
The Farmers, however, are a little more constructive; they suggest fields from which revenue may be drawn. I do not know who is the author of this pamphlet; but I have read and re-read it very carefully, amd I cannot help coming to the conclusion that its author first read the history of Union Government, studied carefully what Union Government had done and what it was doing, and then with that history fresh in his mind, sat down and wrote this pamphlet. My hon. friends yonder suggest a tax on unimproved land. A tax on unimproved land has a fine sound; but it is not in accord with the wishes of the farmers of Eastern Ontario at least, because in Eastern Ontario the farmers themselves are the principal holders for speculative purposes of unimproved lands. If, unfortunately, the control of power in this Dominion falls into the hands of the aggregation yonder-I love my native country; I want to see Canada become a great and good country, and be' cause I do so, I pray that that event will never occur, but if it does this promise will be kept in the same way that this U.F.O. promises to abolish patronage in Ontario was kept.
Union Government has carried out or is carrying out most of the demands made in this small pamphlet. If this document means anything, if it is a true expression of the wishes of the United Farmers of Canada, then at the next general election, the United Farmers of Canada should rally round the standard of Union Government and see that again Union Government is returned to power. If this document does not mean anything, then I say to this new party: Get a definite policy; formulate some new plan which promises continued and renewed prosperity to Canada.
Let me say, just in conclusion, that Union Government has the record of daring to keep its pre-election promises. It has dared to do unpopular things, because those things



were necessary for the good of Canada. Let me apply to Union Government the historic saying of one of Ontario's greatest statesmen, the late -Sir James Whitney:
This Union Government has been brave enough to be bold and bold enough to be brave.
I believe the people of Canada, when this period of carping criticism passes, when this temporary brainstorm recedes, will do justice to this Government which has brought Canada safely, honourably and gloriously through the war and safely and prosperously through the period of reconstruction following the war. .


Mr. THOMAS MacNUTT (Saltcoats):: upon the poor prairie people and forcing the higher quality fruit off the market.
Meaning, the British Columbia fruit. I may inform the hon. member who takes this very kind attitude that the poor prairie people are not in the habit of purchasing third-raite stuff, apples or any other commodity, when they can obtain a higher quality. They are quite willing to pay the difference. We would be willing to pay 183J
at least a dollar a barrel more for British Columbia apples of first quality than for third-rate American apples, 'and consequently there is no necessity for ia tariff of 90 cents a barrel. I can bear testimony to the fact that the British Columbia apple is fully equal to any other apple we can obtain, both in appearance and in quality. There need be no fear of third-quality apples being brought in and forced upon the "poor," unfortunate farmers of the West. The hon. member says that it costs them more to grow apples, but he rather gives it away when he refers to the higher cost of containers. These are the hon. member's words:
They had a better organization than we had and beat us at buying.
Well, there is only one thing which they can do, and that is to organize in such a way that they can buy their containers on equal terms with the Americans, and there is a good example set them by the grain growers of the provinces to which the hon. member refers. What is still more surprising is to find that notwithstanding the strong stand taken by the Liberal party on several occasions in opposing protection, especially at the August convention, with a few exceptions the speeches of hon. members of that party indicate that they 'are in favour to a 'considerable extent of a protectionist policy. There was an excellent opportunity for them to assert themselves, ,but the amendment, moved by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) fell far short of their former professions; and the speeches so far made, with a few exceptions, are not even in line with the present amendment, being indefinite afid disappointing, to some of us at any rate. Last August the delegates of the Liberal party from all parts of Canada met at Ottawa and framed a good low tariff policy which very largely minimized protection. It was a good second to the platform to the Canadian Council of Agriculture, and all the members of the Liberal party pledged themselves to abide by it. I will quote that part of the platform relating to the tariff. It is late, but I trust that the House will bear with me while I read the passage:
That the best interests of Canada demand that substantial reductions of the 'burdens of customs taxation he made with a view to the accomplishing of two purposes of the highest importance first, diminishing the very high cost of living which presses so severely on the masses of the people; second: reducing the cost of the instruments of production in the industries based on the natural resources of the Dominion, the vigorous development of which is

essential to the progress and prosperity of our country.
That, ,to these ends, wheat, wheat flour and all products of wheat; the principal articles of food; farm implements and machinery ; farm tractors, mining, flour and saw-mill machinery and repair parts thereof; rough and partly dressed lumber; gasoline, illuminating, lubricating and fuel oils ;

I wonder how the hon. member fox West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) would take that item. I can remember very well, that when we were canvassing some years ago for what was called the Oliver resolution, which was couched very much in these words, the hon. member for West Lambton was very much annoyed because we would not exclude the different oils, which I believe were manufactured in his constituency. If I recollect aright, he retfused to vote for the resolution on that account, and I do not know what stand he would take in regard to that matter now if he bad an opportunity of expressing himself definitely on it. The platform continues:
*-nets, net-twines and fishermen's equipments ; cements and fertilizers, should be free from customs duties, as well as the raw material entering into the Same.
That a revision downwards of the tariff should be made whereby substantial reductions should be effected in the duties on wearing apparel and footwear, and on other articles of general consumption (other than luxuries), as well as on the raw material entering into the manufacture of the same.
That the British preference be increased to 50 per cent of the general tariff.
And the Liberal party hereby pledges itself to Implement by legislation the provision of this resolution when returned to power.
They have not yet been returned to power and that may be the reason for the present amendment. At the session before last the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) moved an amendment, and it seems to me that that amendment was very much along the same lines as the platform I have just read. Probably the platform was based upon it. I will not take up the time of the House reading the amendment because it is rather lengthy; but it was an excellent resolution, containing very little protection. It was brought before the House at the wrong time, however, that is to say, on a motion to go into Supply. There are a large number of hon. members who approved of that resolution but they were reluctant to oppose the Government. They could not honourably oppose any of the Government's measures without cause, and the Government had had no opportunity of disclosing themselves with regard to their tariff policy-no government does until the Budget is brought down. The consequence was, that a great many sympathetic mem-

bers opposed the resolution at that time. This had another bad effect, namely, that it precluded the introduction of the same principle at that session. When the Budget was brought down a very mild resolution with regard to a lower tariff was, very leniently allowed by the Speaker; because at that time, in my opinion, mild as it was, it was out of order, the principle involved having been already disposed of at that session. At all events, there was one clause that was definite and there were some twelve Liberal-Unionists who voted against the Budget on that account. Others, for some good reason, best known to thern-selves, did not do so. The definite clause to which I refer, which I may say induced me to favour the resolution, reads:
That to relieve the present situtatlon the tariff should be so framed as to free the food of the people and the machinery used in the development of the natural resources of Canada, together with the raw material entering into the manufacturing thereof.
There were good reasons why what is known as the first McMaster amendment could not have been moved at that time, but there is no reason why it or something similar to the August platform could not have been brought forward on this occasion. What is the amendment that we are called upon to vote for or reject? I will real a part of it:
That in view of the continued increase in the high cost of living, of the greatly increased burden of taxation, of the hardship which many of the people suffer from these causes, and the unrest naturally arising therefrom; and in view of the desirability of adopting measures to increase production and effect such relief to consumers and producers as may be within the power of Parliament, the House is of opinion that, pending a wider revision of the tariff, substantial reductions of the burdens of customs taxation should be made with a view to the accomplishing of two purposes of the highest importance ; first, diminishing the very high cost of living which presses so severely on the masses of the people; second, reducing (not freeing) the cost of the instruments of production in the industries based on the natural resources of the Dominion, the vigorous development of which is essential to the progress and prosperity of our country.
The amendment, it will be seen, is of a very general and indefinite nature. In speaking to his amendment, the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's plainly indicated his reasons for not taking advantage of the splendid opportunity to confirm the former anti-protection attitude of the Liberal party in a more definite manner. His speech might just as well have been delivered by one of the members on the other side, who claim to be supporte'-s

of moderate protection, which, like the word "substantial" so often used, may mean anything. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's made the following remarks:
I do not even think we can expect to get a sound and safe tariff policy by a too rigid adherence to every line and every letter of the Liberal tariff platform. I think myself that we will find that we are all prone in framing platforms to put things perhaps a little more strongly than is wise and we all find when we come to the responsibilities of office that we may have to modify our views.
The impression left by the hon. member's remarks can be indicated by quoting from the speech of the right hon. Minister of Trade and -Commerce who, during the course of his long public service, has always stood for high protection and who is now apparently satisfied that he has a colleague in the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's. Referring to that hon. gentleman he said:
Now my hon. friend went on to the tariff question, and there I sat in perfect amazement. I felt almost like saying. " Look over the thirty years that have passed and the controversies that have taken place between my hon. friend and myself, and between his party and the party on this side of the House." J felt almost like saying, when he had finished, " Now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace," and the question forces itself upon me "Has the millennium come?" The whole party behind my hon. friend never squeaked opposition to what he said; they could not; they dared not. They do not like to say what in their hearts they know to be the truth-that is repugnant to them; yet if they were all as honest as the ex-sMinister of Finance they would get up and say the very same thing. New, after these confessions-not of an opium eater, hut of a virile, experienced public man-[DOT] after this candid confession, let me say to hon. gentlemen opposite: "Do not let us hear anything more of the camouflaged debate from that side as to free trade being the doctrine which is dear to your hearts and embodied in your policies. You cannot put it into your policy now. I do not think you ever meant to put it into your policy to carry out as a reality if you ever got into power."
And further on he says:
We have the ex-Finanee Minister standing for an anti-dumping clause-when circumstances require it; standing for a substantial aid to industries-when circumstances require it; standing for mergers-when circumstances require it; aye and even more, standing for the infant industry while it was an infant industry, until it had attained years of maturity; standing for all these-when the circumstances of the case seemed to require it. Where is the free trade doctrine, and where is the difference in principle between myself as a moderate protectionist and my hon. friend as a now avowed protectionist, the principle to be adapted and adopted-as circumstances require it? That was always the doctrine on this side of the House. We never worshipped protection as a
fetish; can the same he said by hon. gentlemen opposite with reference to free trade? We have always believed that the circumstances of the time should dictate the financial and tariff policy of the time. And my hon. friend's confession to-night has amply justified the policy advocated during thirty years by Liberal-Conservatives in all parts of Canada.
' The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce was so overcome by his emotion that he shortly afterwards concluded his speech abruptly-
Judging from further speeches made by members of the Liberal party, so far, with one or two notable exceptions, I think we are quite justified in taking the stand that the present Liberal party, as a whole, was not sincere in its former professions of free trade with regard to the implements of industry, the necessaries of life, and low tariff on other articles. I must, however, except the western Liberals, who, I believe, are honest in their desire for low tariff and I can hardly imagine the Hon. Frank Oliver delivering a speech such as I have quoted from, made by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's.
Now, what effect will the Budget proposals have in increasing the revenues and in reducing the cost of living?-the two most important matters with which the House must deal; apart from the care of our disabled soldiers and the widows and dependents of those who have fallen. That it will attain the first object is probable, although the proper means are not taken, in my opinion, lor the taxes payable by the different classes of citizens, or rather whose occupations are different, will be disproportionate; and there is a certainty of an increase in the cost of living now almost unbearable. The part relating to the taxation of luxuries is, I consider, a proper direct tax. But we must be sure that the articles taxed are really luxuries, and it is very questionable whether this principle has been carried out. For instance, a pair of boots at $9 cannot now be considered a luxury, or a suit of clothes or a woman's dress at $45, or a $5 hat; neither can a bottle of pain killer or other patent medicine be considered a luxury, and there are many other articles that could be mentioned. I received several telegrams to-day and I will read one as a sample, leaving to other hon. members who have been receiving similar telegrams and letters, all relating to the same subject, to bring them to the attention of the committee. The telegram which I shall read is as follows:
Protest very strongly any tax increase on patent and proprietary medicine; whole district requests your best endeavours.


Mr. H. A. FORTIER (Labelle) (Translation) :: and, whatever be the extent of the sacrifice, let us emblazon throughout- the Christian world those grand words of Christian civilization which shine in blazing letters upon the motherland's flag: " Dieu et mon Droit."


Henri Sévérin Béland: Hear, hear!


Hyacinthe-Adélard Fortier: That is the ideal 'for which the sons of Canada crossed the seas and shed their blood on the plains of Flanders. A British statesman said recently: "Our rulers have failed to notice that the reason why our soldiers so gallantly fought was that they meant to kill war itself forever."
There can be no less justifiable an expenditure of public money than this enormous sum for a permanent anny. If there be any expenditure censured by public opinion that is the one. Why, it is in a young country like ours, having scarcely 8,000,000 of people, covering an immense territory, in a country abounding in all kinds of ntaural resources, but remaining unproductive until the genius and labour of mankind do develop them, it is in this country that has almost ruined itself through its sacrifice of men and of money to crush the monster of militarism that we are to encumber the annual budget by the useless expenditure of $12,000,000, in order to keep up a standing army?
The finest movement made by our soldiers returned home from the battlefields was that of seeking their civil re-establishment, of laying aside the old uniform to put on the workingman's livery and to set themselves to those useful occupations which go to create the country's prosperity.
I cannot really see a finer example given to the whole world of that loyalty to the great anti-militarist principles which fill the souls throughout the Allies' countries than the one given by the two highest generals of both Canada and the United States. Indeed recent history tells us that, when the commander-in-chief of the American army returned to his country, his brow crowned with glory, he immediately laid down his sword. The next day following his landing, he threw off his glorious insignia to resume among his fellow-citizens- his usual share of labour and of activity and to beneficially serve his country in the walks of peace. Recently the Canadian press gave us the welcome information that the chief commanding officer of the Canadian Army, -Sir Arthur Currie, had also laid aside his arms to endorse the honourable toga of Principal of McGill Uni-
versity. By such an admirable behaviour, these generals and privates who, once returned home, become the masters in useful and practical enterprises, these high servants of true prosperity, should win the approval of our statesmen. The Government should take its cue from General Currie, who declines the position of chief of the, army in days of peace in order to accept that of being the principal of an university.
Moreover, this spectacle of our generals and of our privates recall a fact of ancient history. In the days when Rome was waging war against the iEqui, in the 5th century, B.C., fortune was adverse to the Roman armies; Consul Minucius' troops were surrounded in the mountains; t-heir destruction was at hand. In her dismay, Rome thought of Cincinnatus. He was then retired upon his -small not of some 4 acres, where he lived most frugally. Rome's envoys found the hero bent upon his spade. He put on his Roman toga to receive the Senate's orders; he was made dictator; he returned to the old city of Romulus; he organized a new army. He flied to the battlefield, crushed the ASqui, saved the consul and his army, exalted in power and in glory, Rome, his fatherland; then he returned to his plough.


Hon. Mr. LEMIEUX:: Hear, hear.


Hyacinthe-Adélard Fortier: That was the action of a great soul. History admired it and -has taken pleasure in relating it to the folio-wing centuries. Indeed it seems to me that the spirit of Cincinnatus still lives in the minds of our soldiers. After 4 years of bloody and freedom-giving warfare, they have melted their cannons into ploughshares and, after distinguishing themselves as liberators, they have set themselves to the task of producing the daily bread for their country.
Another expenditure, improvident, useless and contrary to the interests of this country, is that brought about by the nationalization of the railways. Such a policy is false in principle; it is, moreover, disastrous in its sequel. That which -in our country -contributes to render this nationalization impracticable, is the very same cause which has made of such a policy the greatest failure of our neighbours- of the republic to the south of us. It has been demonstrated here, through an experience acquired at our own expense, that- Government operation of a railroad system, such as the Canadian Northern for instance, among other lines operated by private companies, constitutes an almost unwieldy ineffective and most expensive public service.

Did not the Minister of Railways corroborate this theory recently by imparting to the House the surprising information that the first year's operation of the Government-owned railways leaves us with a deficit of $47,000,000.
Nowhere in the different departments has the Government practised the same doctrine of economy it has been preaching to the people. The Ministry has spent money lavishly for undertakings of a public nature for which no urgent necessity was shown, such as the shipbuilding programme and the regrettable adventure in state ownership of railways. The taxes levied by the new Budget, rendered necessary by the Government's extravagance, are odious to the entire people, who, with one voice, roundly condemn them. It is with the most heartfelt sincerity that II bring my support to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). I note with pleasure that, this amendment expounds the same doctrine as that espoused by the Liberal party in the resolution adopted at the great convention of August, 1919.
The fiscal policy of the Liberal party, responsible for Canada's prosperity during the fifteen years of Laurier's administration, is alone capable of correcting the many evils with which we are beset-the high cost of living and the social unrest which has followed in the wake of the late war. This policy, adopted unanimously by the entire Liberal party at the most representative, the most imposing, the most enthusiastic convention that ever has been seen, that perhaps ever will be seen, in our political history, composed of delegates from every part of the country, is the policy that the voters of this country will shortly carry to triumph at the polls, since an election must be held in the near future.
I cannot keep expressing my deep conviction that this Government will very shortly be forced to go to the people. This is very likely the last session of the present Parliament. At all events, one thing is certain: the people want this session to be the last, and they want a general election this year. My opinion that, an election is coming in the fall is- not the result of any ministerial pronouncement; it is rather the effect of an official denial. In the course of the present debate the hon. Minister of Marine said:
" Speaking for the Government, it has been said before, but I will state it again now, there is no reason why we should go
to the country until the full term of this Parliament has expired."
This statement reveals the ardent wishes of certain members of the Cabinet and of their faithful friends on the Government side; their attitude, however, is not justified by present, conditions; they are flying in the face of public opinion. Moreover, the exact date of an election has always been guarded with the greatest secrecy by those in power, up to the very day of dissolution. Such is the custom followed in our political life, so there is nothing to be astonished at if the Government choose to make an official denial of its intentions in this respect the better to mislead the Opposition.
But the people have their rights. We have had no election, no domestic policy, since 1911. The 1917 election had only one object: carry on the war. The people were promised that Union Government would be instituted for that- sole purpose and that once its special mission accomplished Parliament would be dissolved and a policy of reconstruction and peace-time administration submitted to the country.
The unionist idea was borrowed elsewhere. Did we get it from the United Kingdom? At any rate it was on his return from England that the Prime Minister announced his intention of forming a Union Government since he had failed in hie attempt to bring about a coalition Ministry in this country.
Shortly after the armistice the British Government went to the polls. The war was over and Lloyd George did not wish to sit at the Peace Conference until he had redeemed his pledge to the British people.
Here in Canada, after November 11th, [DOT] 1918, the Union Governement declared that it was in duty bound to carry on until after demobilisation, until the soldiers were returned to their homes. An election, said the Governement, should not be held until the soldiers were back from the trenches and were able to have their say on public questions. We arrived at this state of things some time ago and still the Governement despite its former promises and solemn pledges, insists on staying in office.
However, this stupid resistance to public opinion cannot, last. The people have their rights and they will see to it that the Government is shamed into keeping its word. To-day the most important Cabinet offices have no incumbent; the Eastern Provinces are practically unrepresented at the Council table. Not one of the new ministers is willing to risk a bye-election.

During the numerous bye-elections which were held lately, people everywhere condemned the policy of the Union 'Government. The administration do not inspire confidence any more and is in duty bound to break up Parliament now and to appeal to the people.	,	[DOT]


William Duff: On behalf of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) I beg to move the adjournment . of the debate, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of Rt. Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 12.05 a.m. (Saturday).
Monday, May 31, 1920.